Do the Most Attractive Faces of Patients With Class II Division 1 Malocclusion Differ From Those With the Least Attractive Faces in Terms of Angular and Proportional Measurements Assessed on Frontal and Lateral Photographs?

Background This study investigated the facial angles and proportions affecting facial aesthetics in patients with skeletal class II division 1 malocclusion between those labeled the most attractive and least attractive in each gender.Methodology The study sample included pretreatment extraoral photographs of 60 patients (30 males and 30 females) with skeletal class II division 1 malocclusion according to the ANB angle aged between 18 and 21 years. A panel of 240 laypersons (aged 20-25 years; the average age of 22.5 +/- 0.37 years; 120 males and 120 females) scored the aesthetic evaluation of photographs using the visual analog scale (VAS). Two groups were created according to the mean aesthetic scores of each photograph, namely, the most attractive group with the highest aesthetic scores, and the least attractive group with the least aesthetic scores. A total of 12 patients in each group were selected. Subsequently, their angular and proportional measurements on the frontal and lateral photographs were calculated. Independent-sample t-tests were used to determine if there were significant differences in these measurements between the two groups.Results There was no significant difference in frontal variables between the most attractive and least attractive groups in each gender. The angle NPog-FH was significantly greater in the most attractive males than in the least attractive males, while there was no significant difference between the most attractive and least attractive females regarding any of the profile variables.Conclusions The most attractive females with class II division 1 were similar to the least attractive on evaluating the frontal and profile variables. In contrast, the most attractive males with class II division 1 malocclusion had more protrusion in the chin than the least attractive male patients, with no differences in other profile and frontal variables. These findings suggest considering the chin position during the diagnosis and treatment planning of class II division 1 malocclusion patients.