https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26888465
BACKGROUND: The ideal male jaw angle has not been established. With the advent of additive manufacturing, precise customized shaping is a reality. This study aimed to define the ideal masculine mandibular angle as an aid for 3-dimensional (3D) design.
METHODS: An Internet survey was conducted using black/white photographs of celebrities and non-celebrities. Preferences regarding gonial angle (profile and frontal views), intergonial width and vertical jaw angle position (face frontal view), and angle curvature and definition in oblique views were obtained using simplified, unbalanced Likert scales. Constructs were defined for planning 3D implant designs.
RESULTS: The preferred jaw angle had these characteristics: 130° in face profile view, intergonial width similar to facial width, vertical position in frontal view at the oral commissure or at least not below the lower lip, jawline slope in the face frontal view nearly parallel to (with a maximum 15° downward deviation from) a line extending from the lateral canthus to the alare, ascending ramus slope 65°-75° to the Frankfort horizontal, and curvature in the oblique view visible from earlobe to chin and not pointy.
CONCLUSIONS: Photogrammetric analysis of panel preferences lead to constructs with values useful for the design of 3D printed jaw angles.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-width-compared-to-bizygomatic_fig4_291384320
BACKGROUND: The ideal male jaw angle has not been established. With the advent of additive manufacturing, precise customized shaping is a reality. This study aimed to define the ideal masculine mandibular angle as an aid for 3-dimensional (3D) design.
METHODS: An Internet survey was conducted using black/white photographs of celebrities and non-celebrities. Preferences regarding gonial angle (profile and frontal views), intergonial width and vertical jaw angle position (face frontal view), and angle curvature and definition in oblique views were obtained using simplified, unbalanced Likert scales. Constructs were defined for planning 3D implant designs.
RESULTS: The preferred jaw angle had these characteristics: 130° in face profile view, intergonial width similar to facial width, vertical position in frontal view at the oral commissure or at least not below the lower lip, jawline slope in the face frontal view nearly parallel to (with a maximum 15° downward deviation from) a line extending from the lateral canthus to the alare, ascending ramus slope 65°-75° to the Frankfort horizontal, and curvature in the oblique view visible from earlobe to chin and not pointy.
CONCLUSIONS: Photogrammetric analysis of panel preferences lead to constructs with values useful for the design of 3D printed jaw angles.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-width-compared-to-bizygomatic_fig4_291384320
