Aim: The aim of this work is to evaluate whether some facial components have a stronger impact than others on the perception of beauty and to determine whether classical aesthetical standards are still valid for the current face types. Methods and materials: 58 students aged 18-30 years, 32 male and 26 female were analized. Face photos in a rest position were loaded on “Point.tool” software and some facial landmarks were loaded on “Venus” software to simulate aesthetical improvements. The square Pöch-Perseo mesh was used to develop our own mesh and each face was associated with a reference geometrical shape and a mesh. We carried out a quantitative and a qualitative evaluation of the face after and before the improvement of 75%. The data was subdivided into four categories. Statistical analyses: “Kolmogorov-Smirnov”, “Kruskal-Wallis” and “ManWhitney U” tests were used. Data distribution in each group is not standard. There is a statistically significant difference in the four categories in each group. Result: There are no facial components having a stronger impact on the beauty and attractiveness of a face. No geometrical shape prevails in our sample, although the oval shape is more represented than the others. Conclusion: Classical beauty norms (oval shaped) can no longer be the only appropriate aesthetical reference for the variety of face types we examine in our daily practice.
|Titolo:||Aesthetical standards and new technologies: a comparison|
|Citazione:||Ferroni, S., Borracchini, A., Melacci, S., & Doldo, T. (2012). Aesthetical standards and new technologies: a comparison. VIRTUAL JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 9(4), 10-24.|
|Appare nelle tipologie:||1.1 Articolo in rivista|