Hönn Mirjam, Dietz Klaus, Eiselt Marie-Luise, Göz Gernot
Department of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, Eberhard Karl University, Osianderstrasse 2-8, Tübingen, Germany.
J Orofac Orthop. 2008 Jan;69(1):20-30. doi: 10.1007/s00056-008-0735-4.
The reasons people consult the orthodontist are functional, prophylactic and esthetic in nature, which is why it is important to know (in justifying an intervention for esthetic reasons) what patients themselves find attractive, and whether German university graduates and non-graduates would evaluate the attractiveness of profile views of Class-I, -II and -III patients differently. We also were interested in identifying per group the degree of deviation (from a "normal" skeletal profile) from which the appraisers would judge that profile to be unattractive.
A total of five skeletal Class-I patients with straight-average faces (ideal biometric face as defined by A. M. Schwarz 1958) were transformed to reflect three Class-II profile variants and three Class-III profile variants with Onyx Ceph software. Out of the 35 profiles thus obtained we formed two groups of 20 each. Group 1 comprised the five straight-average (biometric) faces and six retrognathic and nine prognathic profile variants. Group 2 comprised the same five straight-average faces and the remaining retrognathic and prognathic profile variants. Both face groups were evaluated by 117 university graduates (65 men and 52 women) and 103 non-graduates (49 men and 54 women) between 23 and 41 years old. The participants were randomly assigned to the two groups. These volunteers were asked to rate the profiles along a scale of 0 (least attractive) to 10 (most attractive). The paper copies with the profiles were assessed in comparison to a single profile that had been classified with an average of 7.6 by ten orthodontists.
Both groups of observers perceived the five straight-average faces similarly in the first and second scoring rounds. The straight-average face was perceived as the most attractive by both the university graduates (mean: 5.37; 95% CI: 5.15-5.59) and non-graduates (mean: 5.71; 95% CI: 5.48-5.95), followed immediately by mildly and moderately retrognathic, as well as mildly prognathic profile lines. Both groups perceived extremely prognathic and retrognathic profile lines as the least attractive (mean value for graduates: 4.27; 95% CI: 4.05-4.49; for nongraduates: 4.83; 95% CI: 4.59-5.06), with the university graduates' ratings being significantly lower than those of the nongraduates. Grouping the subjects by gender yielded only minor differences in perception.
The straight-average face was perceived as being the most attractive by representative populations in Germany. On the whole, the university graduates were more critical in their ratings than non-graduates.
人们咨询正畸医生的原因本质上是功能性、预防性和美观性的,这就是为什么了解(在为美观原因进行干预时)患者自己认为有吸引力的是什么,以及德国大学毕业生和非毕业生对I类、II类和III类患者侧面观的吸引力评估是否不同很重要。我们还感兴趣的是确定每组中评估者会判断侧面观不美观的(与“正常”骨骼侧面观的)偏差程度。
使用玛瑙头影测量软件将5例面部平直平均(如A.M.施瓦茨1958年所定义的理想生物测量面部)的骨骼I类患者进行变换,以反映3种II类侧面观变体和3种III类侧面观变体。从由此获得的35个侧面观中,我们各组成两组,每组20个。第1组包括5个面部平直平均(生物测量)的面部以及6个下颌后缩和9个下颌前突的侧面观变体。第2组包括相同的5个面部平直平均的面部以及其余的下颌后缩和下颌前突侧面观变体。两组面部均由117名年龄在23至41岁之间的大学毕业生(65名男性和52名女性)和103名非毕业生(49名男性和54名女性)进行评估。参与者被随机分配到两组。要求这些志愿者根据从0(最不吸引人)到10(最吸引人)的量表对面部侧面观进行评分。与由10名正畸医生平均评分为7.6的单个侧面观相比,对面部侧面观的纸质副本进行评估。
在第一轮和第二轮评分中,两组观察者对5个面部平直平均的面部的看法相似。面部平直平均的面部被大学毕业生(平均值:5.37;95%置信区间:5.15 - 5.59)和非毕业生(平均值:5.71;95%置信区间:5.48 - 5.95)都认为是最有吸引力的,其次是轻度和中度下颌后缩以及轻度下颌前突的侧面观线条。两组都认为极度下颌前突和下颌后缩的侧面观线条最不吸引人(毕业生的平均值:4.27;95%置信区间:4.05 - 4.49;非毕业生的平均值:4.83;95%置信区间:4.59 - 5.06),大学毕业生的评分显著低于非毕业生。按性别对受试者进行分组,在感知上仅产生微小差异。
面部平直平均的面部被德国代表性人群认为是最有吸引力的。总体而言,大学毕业生在评分上比非毕业生更严格。