↓ Skip to main content

Mentolabial angle and aesthetics: a quantitative investigation of idealized and normative values

Overview of attention for article published in Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Mentolabial angle and aesthetics: a quantitative investigation of idealized and normative values
Published in
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40902-017-0102-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Farhad B. Naini, Martyn T. Cobourne, Umberto Garagiola, Fraser McDonald, David Wertheim

Abstract

This study is a quantitative evaluation of the influence of the mentolabial angle on perceived attractiveness and threshold values of desire for surgery. The mentolabial angle of an idealized silhouette male Caucasian profile image was altered incrementally between 84° and 162°. Images were rated on a Likert scale by pretreatment orthognathic patients (n = 75), lay people (n = 75) and clinicians (n = 35). A mentolabial angle of approximately 107° to 118° was deemed the most attractive, with a range of up to 140° deemed acceptable. Angles above or below this range were perceived as unattractive, and anything outside the range of below 98° or above 162° was deemed very unattractive. A deep mentolabial angle (84°) or an almost flat angle (162°) was deemed the least attractive. In terms of threshold values of desire for surgery, for all groups, a threshold value of ≥162° and ≤84° indicated a preference for surgery, although clinicians were least likely to suggest surgery. The clinician group was the most consistent, and for many of the images, there was some variation in agreement between clinicians and lay people as to whether surgery is required. There was even more variability in the assessments for the patient group. It is recommended that in orthognathic and genioplasty planning, the range of normal variability of the mentolabial angle, in terms of observer acceptance, is taken into account as well as threshold values of desire for surgery. The importance of using patients as observers in attractiveness research is stressed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 6 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Master 3 10%
Lecturer 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 9 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 65%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Unknown 10 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 March 2017.
All research outputs
#14,183,419
of 22,733,113 outputs
Outputs from Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
#22
of 69 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,412
of 419,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,733,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 69 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,462 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.