article · International Journal of Dentistry
Perceptions of facial attractiveness vary across populations and can directly influence clinical decisions in orthodontic and dentofacial procedures. A cross-sectional study conducted at the Muhimbili University Dental Clinic in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, assessed the facial profile preferences of 387 participants without technical knowledge of profile analysis. Participants ranked diverse male and female facial profiles on a four-point scale. Among male profiles, nearly half the participants preferred a profile featuring a normal maxilla and a retruded mandible, while a profile with a retruded maxilla and protruded mandible was rated least attractive. For female profiles, a straight profile emerged as the most preferred choice by a majority, whereas a profile with a protruded maxilla and normal mandible was ranked lowest. Preferences for several profiles varied significantly across different age and income brackets.
Understanding local aesthetic standards ensures orthodontic and facial treatments align with what patients actually find attractive. Because facial profile preferences are shaped by background and demographic factors, clinical standards from one region cannot be universally applied. These findings provide baseline reference data on patient expectations within Tanzania, supporting better communication and treatment planning between clinicians and patients.
This research provides clinical reference data that can be used directly by orthodontists, maxillo-facial surgeons, and dental practices planning aesthetic and reconstructive treatments for Tanzanian patients. It is applied, observational research ready for immediate clinical consideration in treatment planning, though the abstract does not indicate any standalone commercial product or software development pathway.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Background: The perception of facial profile attractiveness varies among individuals and may influence clinical decision‐making in orthodontic dentofacial treatment goals. Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the facial profile preferences of Tanzanian individuals. Materials and Methods: This cross‐sectional study was conducted at Muhimbili University Dental Clinic in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. A total of 387 participants, including 146 females and 241 males, were selected based on their lack of technical awareness of the facial profiles. The mean age of the male and female participants was 27.94 ± 7.67 and 28.98 ± 7.76 years, respectively. The participants were asked to evaluate male and female facial profiles and score them on a scale of 1–4, with no score being assigned to more than one profile. The relative frequency of the profile scores was calculated, and a t ‐test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare the preferences across different groups. A statistical significance was set at a 95% confidence interval (CI), with a p ‐value of p < 0.05 considered significant. Results: Among the male profiles, 48.3% (187) of the participants ranked profile M1, “normal maxilla, retruded mandible”, as the most attractive, while 48.1% (186) ranked profile M2, “retruded maxilla, protruded mandible”, as the least preferred. Statistically significant differences were observed between age groups and income groups ( p < 0.05) in the ratings of each male profile. For the female profiles, 56.6% (219) of the raters preferred profile F4, “straight”, while profile F3, “protruded maxilla, normal mandible”, was ranked as the least preferred by 51.7% (200) of the participants. Significant differences were observed in the ratings of profile F4, “straight”, between groups ( p < 0.05), except when comparing ratings between genders, where no significant difference was found. No statistically significant differences on age or income were observed for profile F3, “protruded maxilla, normal mandible”. Conclusions: The most preferred profiles among the Tanzanian population were the male profile with a mandibular retrusion (M1) and the female straight profile (F4).
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1155/ijod/2937725
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
