Facial aesthetics and the divine proportion: a comparison of surgical and non-surgical Class II treatment

1 Downs WB. Variations in facial relationships: their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 1948; 34: 812–40. Search in Google Scholar

2 Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953; 39: 729–55. Search in Google Scholar

3 Steiner CC. Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod 1959; 29: 8–29. Search in Google Scholar

4 Tweed CH. Evolutionary trends in orthodontics, past, present, and future. Am J Orthod 1953; 39: 81–108. Search in Google Scholar

5 Tweed CH. The Frankfort-mandibular incisor angle (FMIA) in orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning and prognosis. Angle Orthod 1954; 24: 121–69. Search in Google Scholar

6 Burstone CJ. The integumental profile. Am J Orthod 1958; 44: 1–25. Search in Google Scholar

7 Ricketts RM. A foundation for cephalometric communication. Am J Orthod 1960; 46: 330–57. Search in Google Scholar

8 Merrifield LL. The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 1966; 52: 804–22. Search in Google Scholar

9 Arnett GW, Jelic JS, Kim J, et al. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis: diagnosis and treatment planning of dentofacial deformity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116: 239–53. Search in Google Scholar

10 Riedel RA. Esthetics and its relation to orthodontic therapy. Angle Orthod 1950; 20: 168–78. Search in Google Scholar

11 Park YC, Burstone CJ. Soft-tissue profile – fallacies of hard-tissue standards in treatment planning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1986; 90: 52–62. Search in Google Scholar

12 Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod 1983; 84:1–28. Search in Google Scholar

13 Ricketts RM. The biologic significance of the divine proportion and Fibonacci series. Am J Orthod 1982; 81: 351–70. Search in Google Scholar

14 Ricketts RM. Facial art, the divine proportion and the science of esthetics. In: Provocations and perceptions in cranio-facial orthopedics: Rocky Mountain Orthodontics; 1989; 149–202. Search in Google Scholar

15 Dunlap RA. The golden ratio and Fibonacci numbers. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pty. Ltd; 1997. Search in Google Scholar

16 Ghyka M. The Geometry of Art and Life. New York: Sheed and Ward; 1946. Search in Google Scholar

17 Seghers MJ, Longacre JJ, De Stefano GA. The golden proportion and beauty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1964; 34: 382–6. Search in Google Scholar

18 Kawakami S, Tsukada S, Hayashi H, Takada Y, Koubayashi S. Golden proportion for maxillofacial surgery in Orientals. Ann Plast Surg 1989; 23: 417–25. Search in Google Scholar

19 Brons R. Facial Harmony. London: Quintessence Books; 1998. Search in Google Scholar

20 Levin EI. Dental esthetics and the golden proportion. J Prosthet Dent 1978; 40: 244–52. Search in Google Scholar

21 Heymann HO. The artistry of conservative esthetic dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1987; 115: 14–23. Search in Google Scholar

22 Shoemaker Jr WA, Nestor J. A time to recognize the science in the art of healing. Fla Dent J 1981; 52: 22–3, 46–7. Search in Google Scholar

23 Ricketts RM. Divine proportion in facial esthetics. Clin Plast Surg 1982; 9: 401–22. Search in Google Scholar

24 Shell TL, Woods MG. Perception of facial esthetics: a comparison of similar Class II cases treated with attempted growth modification or later orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod 2003; 73: 365–73. Search in Google Scholar

25 Phillips C, Tulloch C, Dann C. Rating of facial attractiveness. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1992; 20: 214–20. Search in Google Scholar

26 Kerr WJS, O’Donnell JM. Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod 1990; 17: 299–304. Search in Google Scholar

27 Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Poggio CE, Colombo A, Tartaglia G. The relationship between facial 3-D morphometry and the perception of attractiveness in children. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1997;12: 145–52. Search in Google Scholar

28 Nakajima E, Yanagisawa M. The Japanese sense of beauty and facial proportions. I. The facial characteristics of people with malocclusion. Quintessence Int 1985; 16: 553–7. Search in Google Scholar

29 Baker BW, Woods MG. The role of the divine proportion in the esthetic improvement of patients undergoing combined orthodontic/orthognathic surgical treatment. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 2001; 16:108–20. Search in Google Scholar

30 Enlow DH, Hans MG. Essentials of Facial Growth. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1996. Search in Google Scholar

31 Vargervik K, Harvold EP. Response to activator treatment in Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1985; 88: 242–51. Search in Google Scholar

32 Fechner GT. Various attempts to establish a basic form of beauty; experimental aesthetics, golden section and square. Translation of chapter XIV of Fechners Vorschule der Aesthetik. Translated by Niemann M, Quehl J and Hoge H. (1997). Empirical Studies of the Arts 1876; 15: 115–30. Search in Google Scholar

33 Pierce E. Aesthetics of simple forms. Psychol Review 1894; 1: 483–95. Search in Google Scholar

34 Piehl J. The golden section: The “true” ratio? Percept Mot Skills 1978; 46: 831–4. Search in Google Scholar

35 Haines TH, Davies AE. The psychology of aesthetic reaction to rectangular forms. Psychol Review 1904; 11: 249–81. Search in Google Scholar

36 Davis FC. Aesthetic proportion. Am J Psychol 1933; 45: 298–302. Search in Google Scholar

37 Godkewitsch M. The “Golden section”: an artifact of stimulus range and measure of preference. Am J Psychol 1974; 87: 269–77. Search in Google Scholar