Institute of Dentistry, University of Tartu, Raekoja Plats 6, Tartu, 51003, Estonia; Faculty of Odonto-Stomatology, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 6 Ngo Quyen, Hue, Viet Nam.
Faculty of Odonto-Stomatology, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 6 Ngo Quyen, Hue, Viet Nam.
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018 Aug;46(8):1385-1389. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2018.05.029. Epub 2018 May 18.
The study aimed to compare nasolabial aesthetics of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) treated in Vietnam and Estonia using three rating methods: five-point aesthetic index, a visual analogue scale (VAS), and reference scores method.
A total of 56 patients with repaired UCLP (23 from Vietnam and 33 from Estonia) were included in this cross-sectional study. Patients' facial and profile photographs were cropped to reveal the nasolabial region and coded. Five examiners rated nasolabial aesthetics of the patients using three methods: five-point aesthetic index, 100 mm VAS, and reference scores method. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to evaluate intrarater and interrater reliabilities.
The five-point aesthetic index had a higher reliability than VAS and reference scores method. The least aesthetic feature among Vietnamese and Estonian patients was nasal symmetry and nasolabial profile respectively. No differences in nasolabial aesthetics were found between Vietnamese and Estonian patients regardless of the rating methods (p > 0.05) except for nasal symmetry.
The five-point aesthetic index seems to produce more reproducible results. There were no significant differences in nasolabial aesthetics between the two countries. Overall average nasolabial appearance results were obtained using different treatment protocols in the two countries.
本研究旨在使用 5 分美学指数、100mm 视觉模拟评分（VAS）和参考评分法三种评分方法比较越南和爱沙尼亚单侧唇裂腭裂（UCLP）患者的鼻唇美学。
本横断面研究共纳入 56 例唇裂修复后的 UCLP 患者（越南 23 例，爱沙尼亚 33 例）。患者的面部和侧貌照片被裁剪以显示鼻唇区域并进行编码。五位评估员使用三种方法对患者的鼻唇美学进行评分：5 分美学指数、100mm VAS 和参考评分法。使用组内相关系数评估评分者内和评分者间的可靠性。
5 分美学指数的可靠性高于 VAS 和参考评分法。越南和爱沙尼亚患者中最不美观的特征分别是鼻对称性和鼻唇侧貌。无论使用哪种评分方法，越南和爱沙尼亚患者的鼻唇美学均无差异（p>0.05），除了鼻对称性。
5 分美学指数似乎能产生更可重复的结果。两国患者的鼻唇美学无显著差异。使用不同的治疗方案在两国获得了整体平均的鼻唇外观结果。
