目的评估不同视角下面中区(鼻基底和颧骨)形态变化对3类人群(正畸医师、正畸患者、健康成人)唇突度整体感知的影响,为面部美学诊疗提供参考。
方法2024年2至3月于福建省内招募志愿者212名作为研究对象,分为正畸医师[65名,男性28名,女性37名,年龄(31.3±6.9)岁]、正畸患者[72例,男性24例,女性48例,年龄(27.6±5.7)岁]和健康成人[75名,男性37名,女性38名,年龄(25.6±4.4)岁]组。使用三维模型雕刻软件对三维面部建模软件生成的面部模型进行雕刻,模拟不同鼻基底、颧骨和上唇突度,生成5组(每组3个)共15个面部模型:A组鼻唇角正常、鼻基底正常、上唇正常;B组鼻唇角增加、鼻基底正常、上唇扁平;C组鼻唇角减小、鼻基底正常、上唇前突;D组鼻唇角增加、鼻基底前突、上唇正常;E组鼻唇角减小、鼻基底凹陷、上唇正常;各组1、2、3号模型分别为颧骨正常、前突、扁平(其中A组1号模型为初始模型)。各组面部模型截取45°和90°侧面图像(共30张)制作问卷。3组研究对象根据问卷,选择最具吸引力和最无吸引力的面容,并对45°和90°侧面图像进行唇突度评分(0~10分,0分为非常扁平,5分为正常,10分为非常突出)。单样本 t检验对比各组模型评分与中位数5分之间的差异。
结果30张图像中,正畸医师唇突度评分偏离中位数5分的比例[83%(25/30)]最高,正畸患者相应比例[67%(20/30)]居中,健康成人相应比例[53%(16/30)]最低。90°侧面视角下,正畸医师、正畸患者、健康成人对初始模型的评分[分别为(5.07±0.79)、(5.00±1.03)、(4.95±1.07)分]与5分的差异均无统计学意义( t=0.65, P=0.521; t=0.00, P=1.000; t=-0.42, P=0.673)。45°侧面视角下,正畸医师、正畸患者、健康成人对初始模型的评分[分别为(5.42±0.98)、(5.40±1.15)、(5.35±1.45)分]均显著大于5分( t=3.30, P=0.002; t=2.98, P=0.004; t=2.11, P=0.038)。90°和45°侧面视角下,正畸医师、正畸患者和健康成人对E组1号模型(鼻基底凹陷)的唇突度评分均显著大于5分(均 P<0.05)。90°和45°侧面视角下,正畸医师和正畸患者对E组1、2、3号模型(颧骨突度改变)的唇突度评分总体差异均有统计学意义(均 P<0.05)。最具吸引力面容评价中,90°侧面和45°侧面视角下D组1号模型的选择频次百分比均为最大[90°侧面:19.8%(42/212);45°侧面:22.6%(48/212)]。
结论正畸医师对唇突度变化的感知最敏锐;观察视角可影响观察者对唇突度变化的感知,且颧骨和鼻基底突度的变化可使唇突度的感知评价产生偏移。鼻唇角稍大、鼻基底前突、颧骨正常的面容最具吸引力。
ObjectiveTo evaluate the influence of midface (nasal base and zygomatic bone) morphological changes on the overall perception of lip prominence from different perspectives.
MethodsFrom February to March 2024, 212 volunteers were recruited in Fujian Province as study subjects and divided into three groups: orthodontists [65 participants, 28 males and 37 females, aged (31.3±6.9) years], orthodontic patients [72 participants, 24 males and 48 females, aged (27.6±5.7) years], and healthy adults [75 participants, 37 males and 38 females, aged (25.6±4.4) years]. Three-dimensional facial modeling software was used to generate facial models, which were sculpted using three-dimensional model sculpting software to simulate different nasal base, zygomatic bone, and upper lip prominence conditions. A total of 15 facial models were generated, divided into five groups (three models per group): Group A (normal nasolabial angle, normal nasal base, normal upper lip); Group B (increased nasolabial angle, normal nasal base, flattened upper lip); Group C (decreased nasolabial angle, normal nasal base, protruded upper lip); Group D (increased nasolabial angle, protruded nasal base, normal upper lip); Group E (decreased nasolabial angle, recessed nasal base, normal upper lip). Models 1, 2, and 3 in each group had normal, protruded, and flattened zygomatic bones, respectively (with Model 1 in Group A as the initial model). Forty-five-degree and ninety-degree profile images of the models were captured (30 images in total) and compiled into a questionnaire. Participants in the three study groups were selected as the most attractive and least attractive facial appearances based on the questionnaire and ratings of the lip prominence of the 45° and 90° profile images (0-10 points, where 0=very flat, 5=normal, and 10=very prominent). A one-sample t-test was used to compare the difference between model ratings and the median score of 5.
ResultsAmong the 30 images, the proportion of lip prominence ratings deviating from the median score of 5 was the highest among orthodontists [83% (25/30)], followed by orthodontic patients [67% (20/30)], and lowest among healthy adults [53% (16/30)]. At the 90° profile view, the scores given by orthodontists, orthodontic patients, and healthy adults for the initial model (5.07±0.79, 5.00±1.03, and 4.95±1.07, respectively) showed no statistically significant difference from 5 ( t=0.65, P=0.521; t=0.00, P=1.000; t=-0.42, P=0.673). At the 45° profile view, the scores given by orthodontists, orthodontic patients, and healthy adults for the initial model (5.42±0.98, 5.40±1.15, and 5.35±1.45, respectively) were significantly higher than 5 ( t=3.30, P=0.002; t=2.98, P=0.004; t=2.11, P=0.038). At both 90° and 45° profile views, orthodontists, orthodontic patients, and healthy adults all rated the lip prominence of Model 1 in Group E (nasal base recession) significantly higher than 5 (all P<0.05). In Group E (nasal base recession model), changes in zygomatic prominence led to alterations in the overall lip prominence ratings by orthodontists and orthodontic patients, with significant differences among Models 1, 2, and 3 (all P<0.05). In the most attractive facial appearance evaluation, Model 1 of Group D had the highest frequency percentage in both the 90° profile and 45° profile views [90°: 19.8% (42/212); 45°: 22.6% (48/212)].
ConclusionsOrthodontists had the highest sensitivity to changes in lip prominence. The observation angle influenced the perception of lip prominence changes, and variations in zygomatic and nasal base prominence could shift lip prominence evaluations. A slightly larger nasolabial angle, protruded nasal base, and normal zygomatic bone configuration were perceived as the most attractive.
陈林馨,杨鑫汉,陈仲晗,等. 不同视角下面中区丰满度对3类人群唇突度整体感知的影响[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志,2025,60(04):365-374.
DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn112144-20250118-00024版权归中华医学会所有。
未经授权,不得转载、摘编本刊文章,不得使用本刊的版式设计。
除非特别声明,本刊刊出的所有文章不代表中华医学会和本刊编委会的观点。
陈林馨:研究实施、数据整理、统计分析、论文撰写;杨鑫汉:数据采集与测量、统计分析、论文撰写;陈仲晗:研究实施、数据采集与测量;陈思航:研究对象筛选、数据分析;蔡静雯:研究设计指导、技术指导;许潾于:研究设计指导、论文审阅、项目监督和管理

你好,我可以帮助您更好的了解本文,请向我提问您关注的问题。