不同年龄和性别的正畸医师、牙医和普通人对女性牙龈显示、颊面廊尺寸和面部高度的吸引力组合:一项心理测量学研究。

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Head & Face Medicine Pub Date : 2024-03-08 DOI:10.1186/s13005-024-00417-1
Ozra Niknam, Shakila Yousefi Hafshejani, Vahid Rakhshan
{"title":"不同年龄和性别的正畸医师、牙医和普通人对女性牙龈显示、颊面廊尺寸和面部高度的吸引力组合:一项心理测量学研究。","authors":"Ozra Niknam, Shakila Yousefi Hafshejani, Vahid Rakhshan","doi":"10.1186/s13005-024-00417-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Esthetics plays a crucial role in orthodontics and many other dental and medical fields. To date, no study has assessed the combined effects of the 3 facial features 'facial height, gingival display (GD), and buccal corridor size (BC)' on facial/smile beauty. Therefore, this study was conducted for the first time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this psychometric diagnostic study, beauty of 27 randomized perceptometric images of a female model with variations in facial heights (short, normal, long), gingival displays (0, 2, 4, 6 mm), and buccal corridor sizes (2%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%) were evaluated by 108 judges (36 orthodontists, 36 dentists, 36 laypeople) using a 5-scale Likert scale (1 to 5). Combined effects of facial heights, GDs, BCs, judges' sexes, ages, and jobs, and their 2-way interactions were tested using a mixed-model multiple linear regression and a Bonferroni test. Zones of ideal features were determined for all judges and also for each group using repeated-measures ANOVAs and the Bonferroni test (α=0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Judges' sex but not their age or expertise might affect their perception of female beauty: men gave higher scores. The normal face was perceived as more beautiful than the long face (the short face being the least attractive). Zero GD was the most attractive followed by 4 mm; 6 mm was the least appealing. BCs of 15% followed by 10% were the most attractive ones, while 25% BC was the worst. The zone of ideal anatomy was: long face + 0mm GD + 15% BC; normal face + 2mm GD + 15% BC; long face + 2mm GD + 15% BC; normal face + 0mm GD + 15% BC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Normal faces, zero GDs, and 15% BCs may be the most appealing. Facial heights affect the perception of beauty towards GDs but not BCs.</p>","PeriodicalId":12994,"journal":{"name":"Head & Face Medicine","volume":"20 1","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10921605/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Attractive combinations of female gingival displays, buccal corridor sizes, and facial heights according to orthodontists, dentists, and laypeople of different ages and sexes: a psychometric study.\",\"authors\":\"Ozra Niknam, Shakila Yousefi Hafshejani, Vahid Rakhshan\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13005-024-00417-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Esthetics plays a crucial role in orthodontics and many other dental and medical fields. To date, no study has assessed the combined effects of the 3 facial features 'facial height, gingival display (GD), and buccal corridor size (BC)' on facial/smile beauty. Therefore, this study was conducted for the first time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this psychometric diagnostic study, beauty of 27 randomized perceptometric images of a female model with variations in facial heights (short, normal, long), gingival displays (0, 2, 4, 6 mm), and buccal corridor sizes (2%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%) were evaluated by 108 judges (36 orthodontists, 36 dentists, 36 laypeople) using a 5-scale Likert scale (1 to 5). Combined effects of facial heights, GDs, BCs, judges' sexes, ages, and jobs, and their 2-way interactions were tested using a mixed-model multiple linear regression and a Bonferroni test. Zones of ideal features were determined for all judges and also for each group using repeated-measures ANOVAs and the Bonferroni test (α=0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Judges' sex but not their age or expertise might affect their perception of female beauty: men gave higher scores. The normal face was perceived as more beautiful than the long face (the short face being the least attractive). Zero GD was the most attractive followed by 4 mm; 6 mm was the least appealing. BCs of 15% followed by 10% were the most attractive ones, while 25% BC was the worst. The zone of ideal anatomy was: long face + 0mm GD + 15% BC; normal face + 2mm GD + 15% BC; long face + 2mm GD + 15% BC; normal face + 0mm GD + 15% BC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Normal faces, zero GDs, and 15% BCs may be the most appealing. Facial heights affect the perception of beauty towards GDs but not BCs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12994,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Head & Face Medicine\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10921605/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Head & Face Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-024-00417-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Head & Face Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-024-00417-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:美学在牙齿矫正和许多其他牙科和医学领域都发挥着至关重要的作用。迄今为止,还没有研究评估过 "面部高度、牙龈显示(GD)和颊面角大小(BC)"这三个面部特征对面部/微笑美观的综合影响。因此,我们首次开展了这项研究:在这项心理测量诊断研究中,108 位评委(36 位正畸医师、36 位牙医、36 位非专业人士)使用 5 级李克特量表(1 到 5)对 27 张随机感知的女模特图片的面部高度(短、正常、长)、龈沟显示(0、2、4、6 毫米)和颊部走廊大小(2%、10%、15%、20%、25%)的美感进行了评估。采用混合模型多元线性回归和 Bonferroni 检验法对面部高度、GD、BC、评委性别、年龄和工作的综合影响及其双向交互作用进行了检验。使用重复测量方差分析和 Bonferroni 检验(α=0.05)确定了所有评委以及各组评委的理想特征区:评委的性别而非年龄或专业知识可能会影响他们对女性美的感知:男性给出的分数更高。正常脸比长脸更美(短脸最不吸引人)。零 GD 最吸引人,其次是 4 毫米;6 毫米最不吸引人。BC 为 15%,其次是 10%,是最有吸引力的,而 BC 为 25%,则是最差的。理想解剖区域为:长脸 + 0mm GD + 15% BC;正常脸 + 2mm GD + 15% BC;长脸 + 2mm GD + 15% BC;正常脸 + 0mm GD + 15% BC:结论:正常脸、零 GD 和 15% BC 可能最吸引人。面部高度会影响对广东人的美感,但不会影响对北京人的美感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Attractive combinations of female gingival displays, buccal corridor sizes, and facial heights according to orthodontists, dentists, and laypeople of different ages and sexes: a psychometric study.

Introduction: Esthetics plays a crucial role in orthodontics and many other dental and medical fields. To date, no study has assessed the combined effects of the 3 facial features 'facial height, gingival display (GD), and buccal corridor size (BC)' on facial/smile beauty. Therefore, this study was conducted for the first time.

Methods: In this psychometric diagnostic study, beauty of 27 randomized perceptometric images of a female model with variations in facial heights (short, normal, long), gingival displays (0, 2, 4, 6 mm), and buccal corridor sizes (2%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%) were evaluated by 108 judges (36 orthodontists, 36 dentists, 36 laypeople) using a 5-scale Likert scale (1 to 5). Combined effects of facial heights, GDs, BCs, judges' sexes, ages, and jobs, and their 2-way interactions were tested using a mixed-model multiple linear regression and a Bonferroni test. Zones of ideal features were determined for all judges and also for each group using repeated-measures ANOVAs and the Bonferroni test (α=0.05).

Results: Judges' sex but not their age or expertise might affect their perception of female beauty: men gave higher scores. The normal face was perceived as more beautiful than the long face (the short face being the least attractive). Zero GD was the most attractive followed by 4 mm; 6 mm was the least appealing. BCs of 15% followed by 10% were the most attractive ones, while 25% BC was the worst. The zone of ideal anatomy was: long face + 0mm GD + 15% BC; normal face + 2mm GD + 15% BC; long face + 2mm GD + 15% BC; normal face + 0mm GD + 15% BC.

Conclusions: Normal faces, zero GDs, and 15% BCs may be the most appealing. Facial heights affect the perception of beauty towards GDs but not BCs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Head & Face Medicine
Head & Face Medicine DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
32
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Head & Face Medicine is a multidisciplinary open access journal that publishes basic and clinical research concerning all aspects of cranial, facial and oral conditions. The journal covers all aspects of cranial, facial and oral diseases and their management. It has been designed as a multidisciplinary journal for clinicians and researchers involved in the diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of diseases which affect the human head and face. The journal is wide-ranging, covering the development, aetiology, epidemiology and therapy of head and face diseases to the basic science that underlies these diseases. Management of head and face diseases includes all aspects of surgical and non-surgical treatments including psychopharmacological therapies.
期刊最新文献
Development of a machine learning-based predictive model for maxillary sinus cysts and exploration of clustering patterns. Influence of acidic solutions on surface roughness of polished and glazed CAD-CAM restorative materials. The effects of restorative material and connector cross-section area on the stress distribution of fixed partial denture: a finite element analysis. Schneiderian membrane perforation repair using a crosslinked collagen membrane: a retrospective cohort study. Temporomandibular disorder prevalence in malocclusion patients: a meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1