Ozsoy Umut
Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Anatomy, Akdeniz University, Faculty of Medicine, Antalya, Turkey.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Sep;74(9):1847.e1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.05.012. Epub 2016 May 20.
An accurate assessment of range and localization of facial asymmetry is essential to restore facial symmetry. Establishment of a common and well-accepted calculation method might facilitate the interpretation of the assessment results. The aim of the present study was to analyze the global and partial asymmetry of facial soft tissues using 3 different calculation methods and investigate the relationships among them.
Facial asymmetry was performed on the 3-dimensional (3D) images of 51 subjects (23 men, mean age 22 ± 2.2 years; 28 women, mean age 21.1 ± 2.1 years) acquired by a 3D handheld scanner. A mirror image of a facial mask was generated and superimposed on the original mask. Next, the root mean square (RMS), mean absolute deviation (MAD), and mean signed distance (MSD) values were calculated between the original and mirror images.
The calculated difference between the total facial masks (amount of asymmetry) was 0.95 ± 0.29 mm for the RMS, 0.72 ± 0.22 mm for MAD, and -0.04 ± 0.05 mm for MSD. A very high correlation was found between the RMS and MAD (r = 0.98). In contrast, the correlation between the MSD and RMS (r = -0.26) or MAD (r = -0.25) was poor. The coefficient of variation for the MSD (133%) was significantly greater than that for the RMS (30%) and MAD (30%) (P < .05).
From these results, we have concluded that both the RMS and MAD are accurate and reliable methods in a facial asymmetry assessment. The MSD is insufficient alone but can be used as a side parameter to show the direction of the asymmetry.
准确评估面部不对称的范围和定位对于恢复面部对称性至关重要。建立一种通用且被广泛接受的计算方法可能有助于对评估结果的解读。本研究的目的是使用3种不同的计算方法分析面部软组织的整体和局部不对称性,并研究它们之间的关系。
对51名受试者(23名男性,平均年龄22±2.2岁;28名女性,平均年龄21.1±2.1岁)通过3D手持扫描仪获取的三维(3D)图像进行面部不对称分析。生成面部面罩的镜像并叠加在原始面罩上。接下来,计算原始图像和镜像之间的均方根(RMS)、平均绝对偏差(MAD)和平均符号距离(MSD)值。
计算得出,全层面罩之间的差异(不对称量),RMS为0.95±0.29mm,MAD为0.72±0.22mm,MSD为-0.04±0.05mm。RMS和MAD之间发现非常高的相关性(r = 0.98)。相比之下,MSD与RMS(r = -0.26)或MAD(r = -0.25)之间的相关性较差。MSD的变异系数(133%)显著大于RMS(30%)和MAD(30%)(P <.05)。
从这些结果中,我们得出结论,RMS和MAD都是面部不对称评估中准确可靠的方法。MSD单独使用时不够充分,但可作为显示不对称方向的辅助参数。