Parekh S, Fields H W, Beck F M, Rosenstiel S F
Private Practitioner, Dayton, OH, USA.
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2007 Feb;10(1):15-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2007.00378.x.
To evaluate the esthetic acceptability range of computer-generated variations in smile arc and buccal corridor.
Web-based descriptive study using available subjects.
The World Wide Web. Subjects for the main study included 115 lay and 131 orthodontist raters.
Buccal corridors and smile arcs, each presented for a female and a male image. Buccal corridors were presented as none, ideal and excessive. The smile arc was presented as flat, ideal and excessive. The nine male and female variations, as combinations of the above variables, were each presented twice to evaluate reliability.
Acceptability of buccal corridors and smile arcs using the web-based instrument. An arbitrary super majority threshold of acceptability was set at 67% approval.
Both laypersons and orthodontists showed good reliability (k >or= 0.70). There was a broad range of acceptability, but laypersons and orthodontists showed no significant differences on the two variables tested. While orthodontists and laypersons both found smiles with excessive buccal corridors to be significantly less acceptable than those with ideal or absent buccal corridors, they were still acceptable over 70% of the time. Flat smile arcs were only acceptable 50-60% of the time, while smiles with ideal and excessive smile arcs were significantly more acceptable 84-95% of the time. When examining buccal corridors and smile arcs together, excessive buccal corridors were significantly less acceptable than ideal or absent buccal corridors regardless of the smile arc. A flat smile arc significantly reduced the acceptability of any buccal corridor to below the threshold of acceptability.
Laypersons and orthodontists have similar preferences when acceptability of buccal corridors and smile arcs are considered. Flat smile arcs are more detrimental to smile esthetics than variations in buccal corridors. Clinicians must realize that although attractiveness may be reduced by variations in buccal corridors and smile arcs, the result may still be acceptable to a majority of people.
评估计算机生成的微笑弧度和颊侧间隙变化的美学可接受范围。
基于网络的描述性研究,使用现有受试者。
万维网。主要研究的受试者包括115名普通受试者和131名正畸医生评分者。
颊侧间隙和微笑弧度,每种情况均呈现女性和男性图像。颊侧间隙呈现为无、理想和过大三种情况。微笑弧度呈现为平坦、理想和过大三种情况。上述变量组合而成的九种男性和女性变体图像各呈现两次以评估可靠性。
使用基于网络的工具评估颊侧间隙和微笑弧度的可接受性。可接受性的任意绝对多数阈值设定为67%的认可率。
普通受试者和正畸医生均显示出良好的可靠性(κ≥0.70)。存在广泛的可接受范围,但普通受试者和正畸医生在测试的两个变量上没有显著差异。虽然正畸医生和普通受试者都发现颊侧间隙过大的微笑比颊侧间隙理想或无颊侧间隙的微笑明显更难以接受,但它们在超过70%的时间内仍是可接受的。平坦的微笑弧度仅在50% - 60%的时间内可接受,而微笑弧度理想和过大的微笑在84% - 95%的时间内明显更可接受。当同时检查颊侧间隙和微笑弧度时,无论微笑弧度如何,颊侧间隙过大都比颊侧间隙理想或无颊侧间隙明显更难以接受。平坦的微笑弧度会将任何颊侧间隙的可接受性显著降低至可接受阈值以下。
在考虑颊侧间隙和微笑弧度的可接受性时,普通受试者和正畸医生有相似的偏好。平坦的微笑弧度对微笑美学的损害比颊侧间隙的变化更大。临床医生必须认识到,虽然颊侧间隙和微笑弧度的变化可能会降低吸引力,但结果对大多数人来说可能仍然是可接受的。