Objective: To evaluate the ideal anteroposterior position of incisors in lateral smiling profiles with different chin prominences and to relate these positions to nose and chin landmarks based on the perceptions of orthodontists and laypersons. Methods: A lateral smiling profile image of a female subject was adjusted to create five levels of chin prominence (–6, –3, 0, +3, +6 mm). For each level, the anteroposterior positions of the maxillary incisors were adjusted across five positions (–4, –2, 0, +2, +4 mm). Thirty-six orthodontists and 36 laypersons rated the attractiveness of each profile using a visual analog scale. The maxillary incisor position (U1) was measured relative to the external nose and chin landmarks (E-lines). Differences in perceptions between orthodontists and laypersons were analyzed. Results: For profiles with 6 and 3 mm chin retrusion, the most favored incisor positions were the 2 mm retrusion and unaltered positions, respectively. For the unaltered chin prominence, orthodontists preferred unaltered incisors, while laypersons favored 2 mm protrusion.Conversely, for 3 and 6 mm chin protrusion, both groups preferred 4 and 2 mm protrusion, respectively. The distance between U1 and the E-line is the most attractive images ranged from 8.5 to 11.5 mm. Based on the regression model, an optimal U1-E-line distance of 8.95 mm was recommended. Conclusions The preferred incisor position is influenced by chin prominence, with the incisor position shifting in the same direction as the chin. The U1 E-line can be a useful clinical tool for determining the proper incisor positioning. Esthetic perceptions were generally consistent between orthodontists and laypersons.

Objective: To evaluate the ideal anteroposterior position of incisors in lateral smiling profiles with different chin prominences and to relate these positions to nose and chin landmarks based on the perceptions of orthodontists and laypersons. Methods: A lateral smiling profile image of a female subject was adjusted to create five levels of chin prominence (–6, –3, 0, +3, +6 mm). For each level, the anteroposterior positions of the maxillary incisors were adjusted across five positions (–4, –2, 0, +2, +4 mm). Thirty-six orthodontists and 36 laypersons rated the attractiveness of each profile using a visual analog scale. The maxillary incisor position (U1) was measured relative to the external nose and chin landmarks (E-lines). Differences in perceptions between orthodontists and laypersons were analyzed. Results: For profiles with 6 and 3 mm chin retrusion, the most favored incisor positions were the 2 mm retrusion and unaltered positions, respectively. For the unaltered chin prominence, orthodontists preferred unaltered incisors, while laypersons favored 2 mm protrusion.Conversely, for 3 and 6 mm chin protrusion, both groups preferred 4 and 2 mm protrusion, respectively. The distance between U1 and the E-line is the most attractive images ranged from 8.5 to 11.5 mm. Based on the regression model, an optimal U1-E-line distance of 8.95 mm was recommended. Conclusions The preferred incisor position is influenced by chin prominence, with the incisor position shifting in the same direction as the chin. The U1 E-line can be a useful clinical tool for determining the proper incisor positioning. Esthetic perceptions were generally consistent between orthodontists and laypersons.

Objective: To evaluate the ideal anteroposterior position of incisors in lateral smiling profiles with different chin prominences and to relate these positions to nose and chin landmarks based on the perceptions of orthodontists and laypersons. Methods: A lateral smiling profile image of a female subject was adjusted to create five levels of chin prominence (–6, –3, 0, +3, +6 mm). For each level, the anteroposterior positions of the maxillary incisors were adjusted across five positions (–4, –2, 0, +2, +4 mm). Thirty-six orthodontists and 36 laypersons rated the attractiveness of each profile using a visual analog scale. The maxillary incisor position (U1) was measured relative to the external nose and chin landmarks (E-lines). Differences in perceptions between orthodontists and laypersons were analyzed. Results: For profiles with 6 and 3 mm chin retrusion, the most favored incisor positions were the 2 mm retrusion and unaltered positions, respectively. For the unaltered chin prominence, orthodontists preferred unaltered incisors, while laypersons favored 2 mm protrusion.Conversely, for 3 and 6 mm chin protrusion, both groups preferred 4 and 2 mm protrusion, respectively. The distance between U1 and the E-line is the most attractive images ranged from 8.5 to 11.5 mm. Based on the regression model, an optimal U1-E-line distance of 8.95 mm was recommended. Conclusions The preferred incisor position is influenced by chin prominence, with the incisor position shifting in the same direction as the chin. The U1 E-line can be a useful clinical tool for determining the proper incisor positioning. Esthetic perceptions were generally consistent between orthodontists and laypersons.

Objective: To evaluate the ideal anteroposterior position of incisors in lateral smiling profiles with different chin prominences and to relate these positions to nose and chin landmarks based on the perceptions of orthodontists and laypersons. Methods: A lateral smiling profile image of a female subject was adjusted to create five levels of chin prominence (–6, –3, 0, +3, +6 mm). For each level, the anteroposterior positions of the maxillary incisors were adjusted across five positions (–4, –2, 0, +2, +4 mm). Thirty-six orthodontists and 36 laypersons rated the attractiveness of each profile using a visual analog scale. The maxillary incisor position (U1) was measured relative to the external nose and chin landmarks (E-lines). Differences in perceptions between orthodontists and laypersons were analyzed. Results: For profiles with 6 and 3 mm chin retrusion, the most favored incisor positions were the 2 mm retrusion and unaltered positions, respectively. For the unaltered chin prominence, orthodontists preferred unaltered incisors, while laypersons favored 2 mm protrusion.Conversely, for 3 and 6 mm chin protrusion, both groups preferred 4 and 2 mm protrusion, respectively. The distance between U1 and the E-line is the most attractive images ranged from 8.5 to 11.5 mm. Based on the regression model, an optimal U1-E-line distance of 8.95 mm was recommended. Conclusions The preferred incisor position is influenced by chin prominence, with the incisor position shifting in the same direction as the chin. The U1 E-line can be a useful clinical tool for determining the proper incisor positioning. Esthetic perceptions were generally consistent between orthodontists and laypersons.

Objective: To evaluate the ideal anteroposterior position of incisors in lateral smiling profiles with different chin prominences and to relate these positions to nose and chin landmarks based on the perceptions of orthodontists and laypersons. Methods: A lateral smiling profile image of a female subject was adjusted to create five levels of chin prominence (–6, –3, 0, +3, +6 mm). For each level, the anteroposterior positions of the maxillary incisors were adjusted across five positions (–4, –2, 0, +2, +4 mm). Thirty-six orthodontists and 36 laypersons rated the attractiveness of each profile using a visual analog scale. The maxillary incisor position (U1) was measured relative to the external nose and chin landmarks (E-lines). Differences in perceptions between orthodontists and laypersons were analyzed. Results: For profiles with 6 and 3 mm chin retrusion, the most favored incisor positions were the 2 mm retrusion and unaltered positions, respectively. For the unaltered chin prominence, orthodontists preferred unaltered incisors, while laypersons favored 2 mm protrusion.Conversely, for 3 and 6 mm chin protrusion, both groups preferred 4 and 2 mm protrusion, respectively. The distance between U1 and the E-line is the most attractive images ranged from 8.5 to 11.5 mm. Based on the regression model, an optimal U1-E-line distance of 8.95 mm was recommended. Conclusions The preferred incisor position is influenced by chin prominence, with the incisor position shifting in the same direction as the chin. The U1 E-line can be a useful clinical tool for determining the proper incisor positioning. Esthetic perceptions were generally consistent between orthodontists and laypersons.

ABSTRACT This study aimed to assess the reliability of the OneCeph application according to personal computer (PC), tablet and smartphone screen size in comparison with Dolphin software on PC as a gold standard. Cephalometric landmarks were identified on 100 digital radiographs. Twenty-four cephalometric measurements were made with Dolphin software as a gold standard comparing with OneCeph application on smartphone (OS), OneCeph on PC (OP) and OneCeph on tablet (OT). All measurements were repeated after four weeks for intra-examiner reliability with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). One-way ANOVA and Kruskal Wallis test were done for measurement comparison between methods (Dolphin, OS, OP and OT). Results for OneCeph on smartphone and tablet, 21 measurements were comparable with Dolphin while other three (NLA, H-angle and UL to S-plane) were not. In OneCeph on PC, 20 measurements were comparable with Dolphin while other four (NLA, H-angle, U1 to A-point and UL to S-plane) were not. All different measurements were clinically insignificant except H-angle. Intra-examiner reliability represented ICC above 0.9. In conclusion, OneCeph application on three different screen size is reliable to use for cephalometric measurement. Most of the measurements are comparable with gold standard and adequate to be utilised in clinical routine. OneCeph on smartphone and tablet are advantageous from the portable feature over PC.
Cephalometry--instrumentation