Discussion of Lay Panel Assessments
The results of assessments for treatment noticeability suggest that VYC-17.5L does indeed result in natural-looking outcomes, as independent observers were unable to consciously discern treated versus untreated faces. Despite an average total volume of up to approximately 6 mL of VYC-17.5L used to treat subjects’ RCL, the lay evaluators could not determine who had been treated. They also judged the subjects’ faces as significantly younger after treatment in dynamic photos—highlighting the ability of VYC- 17.5L to minimize the appearance of RCL while subjects were smiling. Both male and female panelists selected photographs of the treated subjects as younger looking, a statistically significant finding.
The lay panel review also suggested that panelists viewed subjects photographed before RCL treatment as healthier, an outcome warranting further investigation but possibly related to increased noticeability of skin health indicators such as
photodamage and uneven pigment in the context of treated RCL. However, there was no difference in panelists’ attractiveness preference for before- or after-treatment
photographs and, as previously noted, panelists considered the post-treatment faces to be younger-looking. The preference for after-treatment faces as younger-looking
demonstrates a strong association between dynamic RCL and age perception and supports the use of VYC-17.5L for improving RCL. Further, that the appearance of dynamic RCL did not influence overall attractiveness either before or after treatment is encouraging because these lines were the only feature treated in this study; their isolated treatment did not negatively affect attractiveness judgments by independent
observers, supporting the naturalness of these results. In clinical practice, one age- related cosmetic feature is rarely singled out for treatment in this manner because of a potential for results to look unnatural or unbalanced.1 In this exclusively RCL-focused study, treatment with VYC-17.5L effectively improved age perception while remaining undetected by independent observers.
In the video review, there were no significant effects of treatment on the independent lay panelists’ perceptions of age, health, and attractiveness. The lack of significant effects on perceptions of age, health, and attractiveness in the videos may be viewed as confirmation that the isolated RCL treatment in this study did not detract from the natural appearance of subjects. However, the results are inconsistent with the photographic review findings, suggesting that panelists perceived the two media differently. A photograph may not capture the full dynamics of a smile in the same way as a video; the timing of the smile, the emotion suggested by the entire facial
expression, the activity of other facial muscles, the appearance of hair and other characteristics undetected in photographs, and the “smile line” from an orthodontic perspective have been found to affect how people smiling in videos are perceived.2-6 Although the literature also supports agreement between photo- and video-based attractiveness assessments,2,7 the videos in the present study may have captured details that were less readily perceptible in the photographic review, such as the look of the teeth or the appearance of untreated areas. For example, RCL may often extend to crow’s feet lines (CFL), which were not treated. Reviewers may have focused more on the appearance of untreated CFL, affecting their preference ratings. Whendynamic
facial lines in multiple facial areas were treated with botulinum toxin in 32 women in a study that had a panel of 100 independent lay evaluators, the independent evaluators rated treated subjects as significantly more attractive after treatment.8 Exclusion of facial areas beyond RCL in our study may limit the interpretations that can be drawn from the video-based lay panel results.
References
1. Michaud T, Gassia V, Belhaouari L. Facial dynamics and emotional expressions in facial aging treatments. J Cosmet Dermatol 2015;14:9-21.
2. Koscinski K. Perception of facial attractiveness from static and dynamic stimuli.
Perception 2013;42:163-75.
3. Rubenstein AJ. Variation in perceived attractiveness: differences between dynamic and static faces. Psychol Sci 2005;16:759-62.
4. Lin AI, Braun T, McNamara JA, Jr., Gerstner GE. Esthetic evaluation of dynamic smiles with attention to facial muscle activity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:819-27.
5. Tarantili VV, Halazonetis DJ, Spyropoulos MN. The spontaneous smile in dynamic motion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:8-15.
6. Al Taki A, Hayder Mohammed T, Mohammad Hamdan A. Influence of the smile line on smile attractiveness in short and long face individuals. Int J Dentistry 2017;2017:2637148.
7. Rhodes G, Lie HC, Thevaraja N, Taylor L, et al. Facial attractiveness ratings from video-clips and static images tell the same story. PLoS One 2011;6:e26653.
8. Petrie T, Moore F. Facial treatment with botulinum toxin improves attrativeness rated by self and others, and psychological wellbeing. Dermatolog Surg
2017;43:S322–8.