Perception of the Nose and Lower Face Before and After Orthognathic Surgery in Subjects with Dento-maxillofacial Deformities: An Eye-Tracking Study

The Use of Eye-Tracking Technology in Dento-Maxillofacial Esthetics: A Systematic Review

The use of eye-tracking technology in dental esthetics has gained popularity over the past decade because of its ability to assess observers' visual preferences in an objective manner. The goal of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of eye-tracking studies in dentistry, which could provide a reference for the rational and effective application of eye-tracking technology by dentists in the future. A comprehensive search of articles on eye tracking, published from January 1946 to June 2023, was conducted across several databases using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The major criterion for inclusion was that the study evaluated the use of eye-tracking technology in the field of dentistry. Two independent reviewers screened the eligible studies. A total of 67 articles were identified, 41 of which met our inclusion criteria. The most common application of eye tracking was the assessment of perceptions of changes in specific dental conditions among different classes of observers. Overall differences between groups (different classes of observers, different types of conditions) among different areas or regions of interest were analyzed. This systematic review demonstrated the utility of eye-tracking technology as a quantifiable objective assessment and emerging research tool for evaluating outcomes in several domains of dentistry.

Correlation of Orthognathic Surgical Movements to Perception of Facial Appearance in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate

STUDY DESIGN

Cephalometric scans were compared before and after surgery to assess the degree of correction. Correlations between skeletal movements and survey outcomes were determined using multivariate regression analysis.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify relationships between subjective observer-reported improvements in esthetics and emotional appearance with specific surgical movements.

METHODS

Ten patients at a single tertiary institution (average age: 18.1 ± 0.8), 9 males and 1 female, underwent orthognathic repair and had comprehensive cephalometric records. Standardized anterior posterior and lateral pre and postoperative photographs of patients were included in a survey to clinicians to assess noncognitive domains on a Likert Scale (1-10). CLEFT-Q was administered to gauge patient satisfaction in categories of appearance, speech, and quality of life.

RESULTS

Per clinicians, multiple domains increased including facial attractiveness (4.1 ± 0.7 versus 7.3 ± 0.7, P < 0.001), friendliness (4.5 ± 0.4 versus 7.3 ± 0.5, P < 0.001), confidence (4.1 ± 0.4 versus 7.1 ± 0.4, P < 0.001), and recommendation for surgery decreased (8.9 ± 0.1 versus 3.6 ± 0.5, P < 0.001). Speech distress decreased with increased SNA and convexity, whereas Psychological and Social scores decreased with an increased ANB. Functional eating and drinking scores increased with maxillary depth.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthognathic surgery improves many noncognitive domains in patients with cleft lip and palate as assessed by both patients and clinicians on all aspects of facial attractiveness and perception. These findings demonstrate objective bases of skeletal adjustments for perceived improvements in facial appearance and emotion.

A Narrative Review of Eye-Tracking Assessment of Esthetic Endpoints in Plastic, Reconstructive, and Craniofacial Surgery

ABSTRACT

Reporting of esthetic outcomes in plastic surgery relies classically on ill-defined endpoints and subjective measures very often from the patients' and/or providers' perspectives that are notoriously characterized by subjectivity and questionable solid scientific validation. With the recent trend of increasing demand for all types of esthetic medical and surgical interventions, there is an urgent need for reliable and objective outcome measures to quantitate esthetic outcomes and determine the efficacy of these interventions. The current review is intended to analyze available evidence regarding advantages as well as limitations of eye-tracking (ET) technology in objectively documenting esthetic outcomes of plastic, reconstructive, and craniofacial interventions. Although gaze pattern analysis is gaining more attention, ET data should be interpreted with caution; how a specific visual stimulus directly influences one's sense of esthetics is still not clear. Furthermore, despite its great potentials, it is still too early to confirm or deny ET usefulness. Nevertheless, patient-reported outcomes being most indicative of an esthetic intervention success, measurement of patients' satisfaction by ET technology could offer a major breakthrough in objective assessment of esthetic outcomes that need further in-depth investigation.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

Level III.

Assessing saliency models of observers' visual attention on acquired facial differences

Purpose

Saliency models that predict observers' visual attention to facial differences could enable psychosocial interventions to help patients and their families anticipate staring behaviors. The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of existing saliency models to predict observers' visual attention to acquired facial differences arising from head and neck cancer and its treatment.

Approach

Saliency maps predicted by graph-based visual saliency (GBVS), an artificial neural network (ANN), and a face-specific model were compared to observer fixation maps generated from eye-tracking of lay observers presented with clinical facial photographs of patients with a visible or functional impairment manifesting in the head and neck region. We used a linear mixed-effects model to investigate observer and stimulus factors associated with the saliency models' accuracy.

Results

The GBVS model predicted many irrelevant regions (e.g., shirt collars) as being salient. The ANN model underestimated observers' attention to facial differences relative to the central region of the face. Compared with GBVS and ANN, the face-specific saliency model was more accurate on this task; however, the face-specific model underestimated the saliency of deviations from the typical structure of human faces. The linear mixed-effects model revealed that the location of the facial difference (midface versus periphery) was significantly associated with saliency model performance. Model performance was also significantly impacted by interobserver variability.

Conclusions

Existing saliency models are not adequate for predicting observers' visual attention to facial differences. Extensions of face-specific saliency models are needed to accurately predict the saliency of acquired facial differences arising from head and neck cancer and its treatment.