Stephan Carl N, Henneberg Maciej, Sampson Wayne
Department of Anatomical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2003 Nov;122(3):240-50. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.10300.
Many prediction guidelines exist in facial approximation for determining the soft-tissue features of the face, and the reliability of each is generally unknown. This study examines four published and commonly used soft-tissue prediction guidelines for estimating nose projection, two of which also estimate the position of the pronasale. The methods tested are those described by: 1) Gerasimov ([1971] The Face Finder; London: Hutchinson & Co.), using the distal third of the nasal bones and the nasal spine; 2) Krogman ([1962] The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine; Springfield: Charles C. Thomas), using the average soft-tissue depth at midphiltrum, plus three times the length of the nasal spine (and a variation of this technique: plus three times the distance of the tip of the nasal spine from the nasal aperture); 3) Prokopec and Ubelaker ([2002] Forensic Sci Commun 4:1-4), using the reflected profile line of the nasal aperture; and 4) George ([1987] J Forensic Sci 32:1305-1330), using a variation of the Goode method. Four identical hard-tissue tracings were made of 59 adult lateral head cephlograms (29 males, mean age 24, SD 10 years; 30 females, mean age 23, SD 5 years) on separate sheets of tracing paper. One soft-tissue tracing was also made for each radiograph. All tracings were marked with three identical reference points. Soft-tissue tracings were isolated from one of us (C.N.S.), who attempted under blind conditions to predict pronasale position and nose projection on the hard-tissue tracings, using the soft-tissue prediction guides above. Actual soft-tissue tracings were then compared to each of the predicted tracings, and differences in projection/pronasale position were measured. Results indicate that for nose projection, methods 3 and 4 performed well, while methods 1 and 2 performed poorly. Features which are most related to nose projection/pronasale are described in this paper, as are regression equations generated from these variables that predict pronasale/nose projection better than the traditional methods mentioned above. The results of this study are significant because they: 1) indicate that the popular facial approximation methods used to build the nose are inaccurate and produce incorrect nose anatomy; and 2) indicate that the new pronasale prediction methods developed here appear to have less error than traditional methods.
在面部复原中，有许多用于确定面部软组织特征的预测指南，而每个指南的可靠性通常未知。本研究考察了四种已发表且常用的用于估计鼻突度的软组织预测指南，其中两种还可估计鼻前点的位置。所测试的方法如下：1）格拉西莫夫（[1971]《面部识别器》；伦敦：哈钦森出版公司），使用鼻骨远端三分之一和鼻棘；2）克罗格曼（[1962]《法医学中的人体骨骼》；斯普林菲尔德：查尔斯·C·托马斯出版社），使用鼻小柱中点的平均软组织深度，加上鼻棘长度的三倍（以及该技术的一种变体：加上鼻棘尖端到鼻孔的距离的三倍）；3）普罗科佩克和乌贝拉克（[2002]《法医科学通讯》4：1 - 4），使用鼻孔的反射轮廓线；4）乔治（[1987]《法医科学杂志》32：1305 - 1330），使用古德方法的一种变体。在单独的描图纸上，对59张成人头部侧位头颅X线片（29名男性，平均年龄24岁，标准差10岁；30名女性，平均年龄23岁，标准差5岁）制作了四张相同的硬组织描图。每张X线片还制作了一张软组织描图。所有描图都标记了三个相同的参考点。软组织描图由我们中的一人（C.N.S.）独立完成，其在盲态条件下，使用上述软组织预测指南，尝试在硬组织描图上预测鼻前点位置和鼻突度。然后将实际的软组织描图与每个预测描图进行比较，并测量突度/鼻前点位置的差异。结果表明，对于鼻突度，方法3和方法4表现良好，而方法1和方法2表现较差。本文描述了与鼻突度/鼻前点最相关的特征，以及由这些变量生成的回归方程，这些方程比上述传统方法能更好地预测鼻前点/鼻突度。本研究结果具有重要意义，因为它们：1）表明用于构建鼻子的常用面部复原方法不准确，会产生错误的鼻子解剖结构；2）表明此处开发的新的鼻前点预测方法似乎比传统方法误差更小。
