上颌牙中线移位和下颌不对称的可接受美学限制:谁注意到什么,注意到多少?

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Pub Date : 2024-12-21 DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.10.020
Mesude Sinem Kuruhan, Zeynep Çoban Büyükbayraktar
{"title":"上颌牙中线移位和下颌不对称的可接受美学限制:谁注意到什么,注意到多少?","authors":"Mesude Sinem Kuruhan, Zeynep Çoban Büyükbayraktar","doi":"10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.10.020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate maxillary dental midline shifts and mandibular asymmetries created in different amounts and directions on photographs taken from 7 different angles by different groups and to determine acceptable esthetic limits.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Photographs of a female model in a social smile position were taken from 7 different angles (0° [frontal], 15°, 30°, and 45° on the right and left sides) and digitally modified for maxillary dental and mandibular midline deviations at specified degrees using Adobe Photoshop. To enable participants to evaluate the photographs sequentially, the photographs were transformed into videos using Adobe Premiere Pro software. The videos were rated by 188 participants (48 orthodontists; 49 dentists; 45 esthetic, plastic, and reconstructive surgeons; and 46 laypersons) using the visual analog scale (VAS) in a survey. An analysis of variance test was used to compare VAS scores among raters, and the Bonferroni test was used to compare VAS scores among the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The threshold for the acceptability of maxillary dental midline shifts was 2 mm for orthodontists; dentists; and esthetic, plastic, and reconstructive surgeons but 4 mm for laypersons. Although laypersons were unable to perceive changes in mandibular asymmetry between 0°-6°, the threshold was 3° for other groups. For participants in which mandibular asymmetries and maxillary dental midline shifts were in opposite directions, the threshold for all groups was 6°. For participants in which lower jaw asymmetries and maxillary dental midline shifts were in the same direction, the threshold value for orthodontists was 6°. Other groups could not perceive variables related to asymmetry.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>More sensitive esthetic assessments can be made by evaluating smile esthetics from different angles. Mandibular asymmetries are considered more esthetically acceptable than maxillary dental midline shifts. In mandibular asymmetry and maxillary dental midline shifts, deviations in the same direction are more esthetically acceptable than deviations in opposite directions. Orthodontists are able to notice small changes in mandibular asymmetry.</p>","PeriodicalId":50806,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acceptable esthetic limits for maxillary dental midline shift and mandibular asymmetry: Who notices what and how much?\",\"authors\":\"Mesude Sinem Kuruhan, Zeynep Çoban Büyükbayraktar\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.10.020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate maxillary dental midline shifts and mandibular asymmetries created in different amounts and directions on photographs taken from 7 different angles by different groups and to determine acceptable esthetic limits.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Photographs of a female model in a social smile position were taken from 7 different angles (0° [frontal], 15°, 30°, and 45° on the right and left sides) and digitally modified for maxillary dental and mandibular midline deviations at specified degrees using Adobe Photoshop. To enable participants to evaluate the photographs sequentially, the photographs were transformed into videos using Adobe Premiere Pro software. The videos were rated by 188 participants (48 orthodontists; 49 dentists; 45 esthetic, plastic, and reconstructive surgeons; and 46 laypersons) using the visual analog scale (VAS) in a survey. An analysis of variance test was used to compare VAS scores among raters, and the Bonferroni test was used to compare VAS scores among the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The threshold for the acceptability of maxillary dental midline shifts was 2 mm for orthodontists; dentists; and esthetic, plastic, and reconstructive surgeons but 4 mm for laypersons. Although laypersons were unable to perceive changes in mandibular asymmetry between 0°-6°, the threshold was 3° for other groups. For participants in which mandibular asymmetries and maxillary dental midline shifts were in opposite directions, the threshold for all groups was 6°. For participants in which lower jaw asymmetries and maxillary dental midline shifts were in the same direction, the threshold value for orthodontists was 6°. Other groups could not perceive variables related to asymmetry.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>More sensitive esthetic assessments can be made by evaluating smile esthetics from different angles. Mandibular asymmetries are considered more esthetically acceptable than maxillary dental midline shifts. In mandibular asymmetry and maxillary dental midline shifts, deviations in the same direction are more esthetically acceptable than deviations in opposite directions. Orthodontists are able to notice small changes in mandibular asymmetry.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.10.020\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.10.020","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:本研究旨在评估不同人群从7个不同角度拍摄的照片中产生的上颌牙中线移位和下颌不对称的不同数量和方向,并确定可接受的美学极限。方法:选取某女模特的社交微笑姿势,分别从左右两侧0°、15°、30°、45°7个不同角度拍摄照片,并使用Adobe Photoshop软件对上颌和下颌中线在特定程度上的偏差进行数字化处理。为了使参与者能够依次评估照片,使用Adobe Premiere Pro软件将照片转换为视频。这些视频由188名参与者(48名正畸医生;49个牙医;45名美容、整形和重建外科医生;采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)进行问卷调查。评分者间VAS评分比较采用方差分析检验,组间VAS评分比较采用Bonferroni检验。结果:正畸医师对上颌牙中线移位的接受阈值为2mm;牙医;美容,整形和重建外科医生,但外行人只有4毫米。虽然外行人无法感知下颌不对称在0°-6°之间的变化,但其他组的阈值为3°。对于下颌不对称和上颌牙中线移位方向相反的参与者,所有组的阈值均为6°。对于下颌不对称与上颌牙中线移位方向相同的受试者,正畸医师的阈值为6°。其他组无法感知与不对称相关的变量。结论:从不同角度对微笑美学进行评价,可获得更灵敏的审美评价。下颌不对称被认为比上颌牙中线移位在美学上更容易接受。在下颌不对称和上颌牙中线移位的情况下,同一方向的偏差比相反方向的偏差在美学上更容易接受。正畸医生能够注意到下颌不对称的微小变化。
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
Acceptable esthetic limits for maxillary dental midline shift and mandibular asymmetry: Who notices what and how much?

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate maxillary dental midline shifts and mandibular asymmetries created in different amounts and directions on photographs taken from 7 different angles by different groups and to determine acceptable esthetic limits.

Methods: Photographs of a female model in a social smile position were taken from 7 different angles (0° [frontal], 15°, 30°, and 45° on the right and left sides) and digitally modified for maxillary dental and mandibular midline deviations at specified degrees using Adobe Photoshop. To enable participants to evaluate the photographs sequentially, the photographs were transformed into videos using Adobe Premiere Pro software. The videos were rated by 188 participants (48 orthodontists; 49 dentists; 45 esthetic, plastic, and reconstructive surgeons; and 46 laypersons) using the visual analog scale (VAS) in a survey. An analysis of variance test was used to compare VAS scores among raters, and the Bonferroni test was used to compare VAS scores among the groups.

Results: The threshold for the acceptability of maxillary dental midline shifts was 2 mm for orthodontists; dentists; and esthetic, plastic, and reconstructive surgeons but 4 mm for laypersons. Although laypersons were unable to perceive changes in mandibular asymmetry between 0°-6°, the threshold was 3° for other groups. For participants in which mandibular asymmetries and maxillary dental midline shifts were in opposite directions, the threshold for all groups was 6°. For participants in which lower jaw asymmetries and maxillary dental midline shifts were in the same direction, the threshold value for orthodontists was 6°. Other groups could not perceive variables related to asymmetry.

Conclusions: More sensitive esthetic assessments can be made by evaluating smile esthetics from different angles. Mandibular asymmetries are considered more esthetically acceptable than maxillary dental midline shifts. In mandibular asymmetry and maxillary dental midline shifts, deviations in the same direction are more esthetically acceptable than deviations in opposite directions. Orthodontists are able to notice small changes in mandibular asymmetry.

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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
13.30%
发文量
432
审稿时长
66 days
期刊介绍: Published for more than 100 years, the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics remains the leading orthodontic resource. It is the official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, the American Board of Orthodontics, and the College of Diplomates of the American Board of Orthodontics. Each month its readers have access to original peer-reviewed articles that examine all phases of orthodontic treatment. Illustrated throughout, the publication includes tables, color photographs, and statistical data. Coverage includes successful diagnostic procedures, imaging techniques, bracket and archwire materials, extraction and impaction concerns, orthognathic surgery, TMJ disorders, removable appliances, and adult therapy.
期刊最新文献
All eyes are on us. Assessment of deep learning technique for fully automated mandibular segmentation. Author's response. Author's response. Author's response.
×
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