Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Rating Nasolabial Aesthetics in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: Cropped Versus Full-Face Images.
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018 05; 55(5):747-752.CP

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine if cropping facial images affects nasolabial aesthetics assessments in unilateral cleft lip patients and to evaluate the effect of facial attractiveness on nasolabial evaluation.

DESIGN

Two cleft surgeons and one cleft orthodontist assessed standardized frontal photographs 4 times; nasolabial aesthetics were rated on cropped and full-face images using the Cleft Aesthetic Rating Scale, and total facial attractiveness was rated on full-face images with and without the nasolabial area blurred using a 5-point Likert scale.

SETTING

Cleft Palate Craniofacial Unit of a University Medical Center.

PATIENTS

Inclusion criteria: nonsyndromic unilateral cleft lip and an available frontal view photograph around 10 years of age.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

a history of facial trauma and an incomplete cleft. Eighty-one photographs were available for assessment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Differences in mean CARS scores between cropped versus full-face photographs and attractive versus unattractive rated patients were evaluated by paired t test.

RESULTS

Nasolabial aesthetics are scored more negatively on full-face photographs compared to cropped photographs, regardless of facial attractiveness. (Mean CARS score, nose: cropped = 2.8, full-face = 3.0, P < .001; lip: cropped = 2.4, full-face = 2.7, P < .001; nose and lip: cropped = 2.6, full-face = 2.8, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Aesthetic outcomes of the nasolabial area are assessed significantly more positively when using cropped images compared to full-face images. For this reason, cropping images, revealing the nasolabial area only, is recommended for aesthetical assessments.

Links

Publisher Full Text

Authors+Show Affiliations

Schwirtz RMF
1 Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Mulder FJ
1 Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Mosmuller DGM
1 Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Tan RA
1 Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Maal TJ
2 The 3D-Facial Imaging Research Group, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Prahl C
3 Department of Orthodontics, Academic Center for Dentistry of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
de Vet HCW
4 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Don Griot JPW
1 Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

MeSH

ChildCleft LipCleft PalateEsthetics, DentalFemaleHumansMaleNoseObserver VariationPhotographyReconstructive Surgical ProceduresReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesVisual Analog Scale

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

29350971

Citation

Schwirtz, Roderic M F., et al. "Rating Nasolabial Aesthetics in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: Cropped Versus Full-Face Images." The Cleft Palate-craniofacial Journal : Official Publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, vol. 55, no. 5, 2018, pp. 747-752.
Schwirtz RMF, Mulder FJ, Mosmuller DGM, et al. Rating Nasolabial Aesthetics in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: Cropped Versus Full-Face Images. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(5):747-752.
Schwirtz, R. M. F., Mulder, F. J., Mosmuller, D. G. M., Tan, R. A., Maal, T. J., Prahl, C., de Vet, H. C. W., & Don Griot, J. P. W. (2018). Rating Nasolabial Aesthetics in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: Cropped Versus Full-Face Images. The Cleft Palate-craniofacial Journal : Official Publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, 55(5), 747-752. https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665617747702
Schwirtz RMF, et al. Rating Nasolabial Aesthetics in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: Cropped Versus Full-Face Images. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(5):747-752. PubMed PMID: 29350971.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Rating Nasolabial Aesthetics in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: Cropped Versus Full-Face Images. AU - Schwirtz,Roderic M F, AU - Mulder,Frans J, AU - Mosmuller,David G M, AU - Tan,Robin A, AU - Maal,Thomas J, AU - Prahl,Charlotte, AU - de Vet,Henrica C W, AU - Don Griot,J Peter W, Y1 - 2018/01/19/ PY - 2018/1/20/pubmed PY - 2019/9/19/medline PY - 2018/1/20/entrez KW - cleft lip and palate KW - cropping photographs KW - full-face images KW - nasolabial appearance SP - 747 EP - 752 JF - The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association JO - Cleft Palate Craniofac. J. VL - 55 IS - 5 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To determine if cropping facial images affects nasolabial aesthetics assessments in unilateral cleft lip patients and to evaluate the effect of facial attractiveness on nasolabial evaluation. DESIGN: Two cleft surgeons and one cleft orthodontist assessed standardized frontal photographs 4 times; nasolabial aesthetics were rated on cropped and full-face images using the Cleft Aesthetic Rating Scale, and total facial attractiveness was rated on full-face images with and without the nasolabial area blurred using a 5-point Likert scale. SETTING: Cleft Palate Craniofacial Unit of a University Medical Center. PATIENTS: Inclusion criteria: nonsyndromic unilateral cleft lip and an available frontal view photograph around 10 years of age. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: a history of facial trauma and an incomplete cleft. Eighty-one photographs were available for assessment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in mean CARS scores between cropped versus full-face photographs and attractive versus unattractive rated patients were evaluated by paired t test. RESULTS: Nasolabial aesthetics are scored more negatively on full-face photographs compared to cropped photographs, regardless of facial attractiveness. (Mean CARS score, nose: cropped = 2.8, full-face = 3.0, P < .001; lip: cropped = 2.4, full-face = 2.7, P < .001; nose and lip: cropped = 2.6, full-face = 2.8, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Aesthetic outcomes of the nasolabial area are assessed significantly more positively when using cropped images compared to full-face images. For this reason, cropping images, revealing the nasolabial area only, is recommended for aesthetical assessments. SN - 1545-1569 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/29350971/Rating_Nasolabial_Aesthetics_in_Unilateral_Cleft_Lip_and_Palate_Patients:_Cropped_Versus_Full_Face_Images_ L2 - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1055665617747702?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&amp;rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&amp;rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -