Facial attractiveness of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate and of controls assessed by laypersons and professionals.

OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to identify differences in the aesthetic evaluation of profile and frontal photographs of (1) patients treated for complete left-sided cleft lip and palate and (2) control patients by laypeople and professionals. MATERIALS, SUBJECTS, AND METHODS Left-side profile and frontal photographs of 20 adult patients treated for complete left-sided cleft lip and palate (10 men, 10 women, mean age: 20.5 years) and of 10 control patients with a class I occlusion (five men, five women, mean age: 22.1 years) were included in the study. The post-treatment photographs were evaluated by 15 adult laypeople, 14 orthodontists, and 10 maxillofacial surgeons. Each photograph was judged on a modified visual analogue scale (VA S, 0-10; 0 'very unattractive' to 10 'very attractive'). A four-level mixed model was fitted in which the VA S score was the dependent variable; cases, profession, view, and rater were independent variables. RESULTS Compared with laypersons, orthodontists gave higher VA S scores (+0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.53, 0.84]; P < 0.001), followed by surgeons (+0.21, 95% CI [0.03, 0.38], P = 0.02). Controls were given significantly higher scores than patients with clefts for profile and frontal photographs (+1.97, 95% CI [1.60; 2.35], P < 0.001). No significant difference was found between the scores for the frontal and lateral views (P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS All the different rater panels were less satisfied with the facial aesthetics of patients with clefts compared with that of control patients. Further research should evaluate whether these findings correlate with patients' self-perception and to what extent it affects the patients' psychosocial well-being.

Soil conservation in Swiss agriculture - Approaching abstract and symbolic meanings in farmers' life-worlds

This paper explores the significance of ‘life-worlds’ for better understanding why farmers adopt or reject soil conservation measures and for identifying basic dimensions to be covered by social learning processes in Swiss agricultural soil protection. The study showed that farmers interpret soil erosion and soil conservation measures against the background of their entire life-world. By doing so, farmers consider abstract and symbolic meanings of soil conservation. This is, soil conservation measures have to be feasible and practical in the everyday farming routine, however, they also have to correspond with their aesthetic perception, their value system and their personal and professional identities. Consequently, by switching to soil conservation measures such as no-tillage farmers have to adapt not only the routines of their daily farming life, but also their perception of the aesthetics of cultivated land, underlying values and images of themselves. Major differences between farmers who adopt and farmers who reject no-tillage were found to depend on the degree of coherence they could create between the abstract and symbolic meanings of the soil conservation measure. From this perspective, implementation of soil protection measures faces the challenge of facilitating interactions between farmers, experts and scientists at a ‘deeper’ level, with an awareness of all significant dimensions that characterise the life-world. The paper argues that a certain level of shared symbolic meaning is essential to achieving mutual understanding in social learning processes.