title: Photos vs silhouettes for evaluation of profile esthetics between white and black evaluators.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To determine whether photos or silhouettes are adequate methods for evaluating the esthetic profiles of black subjects and whether black and white evaluators have different preferences for esthetic profiles.
  
  
  METHODS
  One photographic record of the profile of a black female patient with accentuated dental bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion was randomly selected. The image of the patient's profile was altered to produce a series of seven photos and seven silhouettes (a total of 14 images) with different lip positions but uniform distances in relation to the esthetic plane created by Ricketts (line E). Fifty black and 50 white lay evaluators were invited to enumerate the photos and silhouettes, produced according to the lip position, in the order in which they considered most esthetically pleasing.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The number of preferences found to be within the esthetic norm was slightly higher among the photographs than among the silhouettes; the esthetic profile with a deviation of -2 mm from line E was elected as the most attractive, and the esthetic pattern with a deviation of +6 mm from the normal line E was considered the least attractive. There were no statistically significant differences between the preferences related to the variables race, sex, and educational background.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The esthetic attractiveness of the facial profiles of black subjects in photos and silhouettes was evaluated in a similar manner among black and white evaluators. Among both black and white evaluators, the greatest preference was for the slightly concave profile, which was within the limit considered standard.
authors: a  Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Southwest Bahia State University UESB, Jequié, Bahia, Brazil.
authors: Matheus Melo
authors: MM
authors: Pithon
authors: Iane Souza Nery
authors: IS
authors: Silva
authors: Indira Oliveira
authors: IO
authors: Almeida
authors: Marine Soares
authors: MS
authors: Nery
authors: Michele Luz
authors: ML
authors: de Souza
authors: George
authors: G
authors: Barbosa
authors: Alex Ferreira
authors: AF
authors: Dos Santos
authors: Raildo
authors: R
authors: da Silva Coqueiro
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001290:Attitude; D044383:Black People; D004522:Educational Status; D004954:Esthetics; D005145:Face / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008046:Lip / Q000033:anatomy & histology; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010781:Photography / Q000379:methods*; D012737:Sex Factors; D013334:Students / Q000523:psychology; D013335:Students, Dental / Q000523:psychology; D044465:White People; D055815:Young Adult
references: Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011 Dec;35(6):1016-21
references: 21487908
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Sep;116(3):352-60
references: 10474110
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Sep;132(3):324-31
references: 17826600
references: J Craniofac Surg. 2008 Nov;19(6):1481-6
references: 19098536
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012 Jul;142(1):52-9
references: 22748990
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012 Feb;141(2):161-8
references: 22284283
references: Angle Orthod. 2002 Feb;72(1):72-80
references: 11843277
references: J Orthod. 2011 Jun;38(2):107-12
references: 21677102
references: J Esthet Dent. 1999;11(6):311-24
references: 10825866
references: J Orofac Orthop. 2008 Nov;69(6):424-36
references: 19169639
references: Saudi Med J. 2011 Aug;32(8):836-42
references: 21858394
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Apr;133(4):524-31
references: 18405816