TY - JOUR
T1 - Rating nasolabial aesthetics in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients
T2 - 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.
PY - 2018/5/1
Y1 - 2018/5/1
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 fullface 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.
AB - 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 fullface 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.
KW - Cleft lip and palate
KW - Cropping photographs
KW - Full-face images
KW - Nasolabial appearance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048546398&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665617747702
DO - https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665617747702
M3 - Article
C2 - 29350971
SN - 1055-6656
VL - 55
SP - 747
EP - 752
JO - Cleft palate-craniofacial journal
JF - Cleft palate-craniofacial journal
IS - 5
ER -