# Cosmetic Surgery or Not? A Dual Perspective from Professionals and Laypeople on the Facial Aesthetic Improvement of Patients Undergoing Complex Treatments—A Pilot Study

## TL;DR

The study compares how professionals and laypeople judge facial aesthetics after treatments, finding that while opinions are subjective, experts are better at identifying specific procedures.

## Contribution

This pilot study introduces a dual perspective framework comparing professional and lay aesthetic evaluations in facial treatments.

## Key findings

- No significant differences in subjective aesthetic improvement ratings between professionals and laypeople.
- Professionals were more accurate in identifying treatments in 3 out of 7 cases.
- Experts tended to underrate their own assessment abilities compared to laypeople.

## Abstract

Introduction: Facial aesthetics is an intricate domain bridging biology, psychology, and culture. It is influenced by evolutionary traits and societal norms, often driving demand for cosmetic treatments. While public perceptions of these interventions are widely studied, professional evaluations remain underexplored. This study examines differences in aesthetic judgement and treatment identification between healthcare professionals and laypeople, aiming to enhance clinical practice and research in facial aesthetics. Methods: A cross-sectional survey, administered via Microsoft Forms, assessed aesthetic evaluations from 88 participants, including professionals (e.g., dentists, dermatologists, and plastic surgeons) and laypeople. The survey comprised demographic questions, self-reported aesthetic assessment abilities, and visual evaluations of pre- and post-treatment images. Statistical analyses, including Fisher’s exact test and the Mann–Whitney U Test, evaluated associations between expertise level and judgments of facial beauty and treatment accuracy. Results: This study found no significant differences in subjective aesthetic improvement ratings between professionals and laypeople, suggesting that aesthetic judgments are inherently subjective. However, professionals demonstrated greater accuracy in identifying treatments in 3 of 7 cases (p < 0.05). Self-assessment revealed a critical disparity, with experts often underrating their skills compared to non-experts. Discussion: These findings highlight the interplay between expertise and subjectivity in aesthetic evaluations. While professional training enhances procedural recognition, biases influence judgement regardless of expertise. Incorporating standardised evaluation frameworks can refine aesthetic assessments across groups. Conclusions: This study underscores the value of expertise in treatment identification and advocates for standardised assessment methods to minimise bias, improve training, and support patient-centred aesthetic care.