头影测量与侧貌吸引力的二次相关性分析

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2026.01.013

上海口腔医学 ›› 2026, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (1): 77-82.doi: 10.19439/j.sjos.2026.01.013

头影测量与侧貌吸引力的二次相关性分析

冯小凡¹, 陈昕², 任洪芋²

1.湖北医药学院, 湖北十堰 442000;
2.襄阳市口腔医院/湖北文理学院附属口腔医院正畸科,湖北襄阳 441003

收稿日期:2025-05-27 修回日期:2025-07-09 出版日期:2026-03-12 发布日期:2026-03-12
通讯作者: 任洪芋,E-mail：renhongyu@whu.edu.cn
作者简介:冯小凡（1994-）,男,在读硕士研究生,住院医师,E-mail：r3373311@163.com
基金资助:
湖北省卫生健康科研基金（WJ2021M054）; 隆中青年英才项目（2023）

Quadratic correlation analysis between cephalometric measurements and facial profile attractiveness

Feng Xiaofan¹, Chen Xin², Ren Hongyu²

1. Hubei University of Medicine. Shiyan 442000;
2. Department of Orthodontics, Xiangyang Stomatological Hospital, Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Hubei University of Arts and Science. Xiangyang 441003,Hubei Province, China

Received:2025-05-27 Revised:2025-07-09 Online:2026-03-12 Published:2026-03-12

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的分析头影测量与侧貌吸引力的非线性二次相关性。方法 16名非口腔专业人士通过照片对180例未经正畸治疗的成年患者侧貌吸引力进行评分。分析37项头影测量指标与侧貌吸引力的非线性二次相关性,进一步确定显著性头影测量指标的最大吸引力值（maximum attractiveness value, MAV）。结果 19项指标与侧貌吸引力呈显著二次相关性,其r值范围为0.203~0.529。其中,与侧貌吸引力呈显著二次相关性的前12项指标依次为ANB（r=0.529,MAV=2.3°）、NA-APo（0.505,3.9°）、G'-Sn-Pog'（0.467,11.1°）、UL-EP（0.440,-0.3 mm）、Wits（0.415,0.1 mm）、Facial Angle（0.374,89.1°）、FMIA（0.374,63.6°）、Pog' to G Vert（0.374,0.7 mm）、N'Vert-Pog'（0.368,4.2 mm）、SNB（0.367,79.2°）、L1-NB（0.346,5.3 mm）和L1-NB（0.340,25.2°）。结论下颌矢状向位置和上唇突度可能是与侧貌吸引力相关的主要头影测量参数。下切牙矢状向位置对侧貌吸引力的影响程度大于上切牙。大多数头影测量指标的MAV与参考值差异显著,参考值并不能准确反映侧貌吸引力。

关键词: 面部, 美学, 头影测量, 二次相关性

Abstract: PURPOSE: To explore the nonlinear quadratic relationship between cephalometric measurements and facial attractiveness. METHODS: Photographs were used by 16 laypersons to rate the attractiveness of 180 adult patients without orthodontic treatment.The quadratic correlation between 37 cephalometric measures(obtained from lateral cephalograms) and facial attractiveness was calculated, and the maximum attractiveness values(MAVs) for significant cephalometric measures were identified. RESULTS: Nineteen measures demonstrated significant quadratic correlations with facial attractiveness, with r values from 0.203 to 0.529. The top 12 parameters that had a significant quadratic correlation with facial attractiveness were ANB angle (r = 0.529, MAV = 2.3°), NA-APo (0.505, 3.9°), G'-Sn-Pog' (0.467, 11.1°), UL-EP (0.440, -0.3 mm), Wits (0.415, 0.1 mm), facial angle (0.374, 89.1°), FMIA (0.374, 63.6°), Pog' to G Vert (0.374, 0.7 mm), N' Vert-Pog'(0.368, 4.2 mm), SNB(0.367, 79.2°), L1-NB (0.346, 5.3 mm) and L1-NB (0.340, 25.2°), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The protrusion of the upper lip and the anteroposterior position of the mandible may be the primary cephalometric parameters related to subjective facial profile perceptions. The position of the lower incisor contributed more to facial attractiveness than the upper incisor. It is noteworthy that the normal values for most cephalometric measurements differ significantly from the MAV, indicating that these normal values do not accurately reflect facial attractiveness.

Key words: Face, Esthetics, Cephalometric measurements, Quadratic correlation

中图分类号:

R783.5

冯小凡, 陈昕, 任洪芋. 头影测量与侧貌吸引力的二次相关性分析[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2026, 35(1): 77-82.

Feng Xiaofan, Chen Xin, Ren Hongyu. Quadratic correlation analysis between cephalometric measurements and facial profile attractiveness[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2026, 35(1): 77-82.

参考文献

[1] Oka A, Tanikawa C, Ohara H, et al.Relationship between stigma experience and self-perception related to facial appearance in young Japanese patients with cleft lip and/or palate[J]. Cleft Palate Craniofac J, 2023, 60(12): 1546-1555.
[2] Kouskoura T, Ochsner T, Verna C, et al.The effect of orthodontic treatment on facial attractiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur J Orthod, 2022, 44(6): 636-649.
[3] Ren H, Chen X, Zhang Y.Correlation between facial attractiveness and facial components assessed by laypersons and orthodontists[J]. J Dent Sci, 2021, 16(1): 431-436.
[4] Hoffman G R, Staples G, Moloney FB.Cephalometric alterations following facial advancement surgery: 1. statistical evaluation. a review of aesthetic evaluation of the face and an attempt to assess treatment validity[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 1994, 22(4): 214-219.
[5] Sycińska-Dziarnowska M, Lindauer SJ, Szyszka-Sommerfeld L, et al.Laryngeal cartilage calcifications on lateral cephalometric radiographs[J]. Sci Rep, 2024, 14(1): 2388.
[6] Pae EK, McKenna GA, Sheehan TJ, et al. Role of lateral cephalograms in assessing severity and difficulty of orthodontic cases[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2001, 120(3): 254-262.
[7] Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, et al.Comparison of cephalometric norms between Japanese and Caucasian adults in antero-posterior and vertical dimension[J]. Eur J Orthod, 2007, 29(5): 493-499.
[8] Stahl de Castrillon F, Baccetti T, Franchi L, et al. Lateral cephalometric standards of Germans with normal occlusion from 6 to 17 years of age[J]. J Orofac Orthop, 2013, 74(3): 236-256.
[9] Al Taki A, Yaqoub S, Hassan M.Legan-burstone soft tissue profile values in a Circassian adult sample[J]. J Orthod Sci, 2018, 7: 18.
[10] Milutinovic J, Aleksic E, Avramov S, et al.Esthetic preferences of orthodontists, dentists, and plastic surgeons for balanced facial profiles[J]. J Oral Sci, 2023, 65(2): 73-76.
[11] Saponaro G, Gasparini G, Boniello R, et al.The rules of attractiveness: a study on the lower facial third[J]. J Craniofac Surg, 2018, 29(7): 1945-1946.
[12] Lew KK, Ho KK, Keng SB, et al. Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in Chinese adults with esthetic facial profiles[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 1992, 50(11): 1184-1189, 1189-1190.
[13] Ghorbanyjavadpour F, Rakhshan V.Factors associated with the beauty of soft-tissue profile[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2019, 155(6): 832-843.
[14] Yu XN, Bai D, Feng X, et al.Correlation between cephalometric measures and end-of-treatment facial attractiveness[J]. J Craniofac Surg, 2016, 27(2): 405-409.
[15] Oh HS, Korn EL, Zhang X, et al. Correlations between cephalometric and photographic measurements of facial attractiveness in Chinese and US patients after orthodontic treatment[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2009, 136(6): 762.e1-e14.
[16] Godinho J, Fernandes D, Pires P, et al.Cephalometric determinants of facial attractiveness: a quadratic correlation study[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2023, 163(3): 398-406.
[17] Kim HY.Statistical notes for clinical researchers: covariance and correlation[J]. Restor Dent Endod, 2018, 43(1): e4.
[18] 吴雁格, 刘家琦, 张真真, 等. 恒牙列X线头影测量127项指标正常值研究[J].口腔医学, 2021, 41(9): 797-804.
[19] Pandis N.Correlation and linear regression[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2016, 149(2): 298-299.
[20] Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, et al.Influence of facial convexity on facial attractiveness in Japanese[J]. Orthod Craniofac Res, 2007, 10(4): 181-186.
[21] Chen W, Zhan C, Chung SM, et al.Perception of facial esthetics and cephalometric correlations in ClassⅡpatients: a comparison between two-phase and one-phase treatments[J]. Sci Rep, 2024, 14(1): 27305.
[22] Godinho J, Gonçalves RP, Jardim L.Contribution of facial components to the attractiveness of the smiling face in male and female patients: a cross-sectional correlation study[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2020, 157(1): 98-104.
[23] Kirschen RH, O'Higgins EA, Lee RT. The royal London space planning: an integration of space analysis and treatment planning: part I: assessing the space required to meet treatment objectives[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2000, 118(4): 448-455.
[24] Tweed CH.The Frankfort-mandibular plane angle in orthodontic diagnosis, classification, treatment planning, and prognosis[J]. Am J Orthod Oral Surg, 1946, 32: 175-230.
[25] Hernández-Sayago E, Espinar-Escalona E, Barrera-Mora JM, et al.Lower incisor position in different malocclusions and facial patterns[J]. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, 2013, 18(2): e343-e350.

头影测量与侧貌吸引力的二次相关性分析

Quadratic correlation analysis between cephalometric measurements and facial profile attractiveness

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	叶秋萍, 罗善峰, 朱挺, 金琦琪. 数字化导板辅助在前牙种植修复中的应用效果评价[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2025, 34(6): 606-610.
[2]	王德明, 苏立新, 杨耀武, 刘少华, 龚忠诚, 梁新华, 蔡育, 刘宇楠, 秦中平, 董长宪, 陈传俊, 吕少华, 于国霞, 郭磊, 张胜, 申刚, 孟箭, 李海波, 阴捷, 郑家伟, 范新东. 口腔颌面部脉管性疾病出血处理专家共识[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2025, 34(5): 449-456.
[3]	闵皓博, 董建伟, 岳鹏. 预成纤维桩与纯钛金属桩对前牙牙体缺损修复美学效果、牙周指数及口腔功能的影响[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2025, 34(5): 508-512.
[4]	李春颖, 宋鹤, 王发文, 赵宁. 矢向引导双垫矫治器对青少年骨性Ⅱ类错畸形下颌骨三维生长改建的影响[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2025, 34(5): 540-544.
[5]	陳欣彤, 毛艳敏, 卢芸, 吕金钊, 李强. 上海地区有高等教育经历的非正畸专业人士对女性拔牙正畸术后审美感知的变化[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2025, 34(4): 369-374.
[6]	刘秉尧, 俞越, 吴莹莹, 何懋典, 张方琪. 上颌单颗前牙即刻种植与延期种植修复的美学效果比较[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2025, 34(4): 387-391.
[7]	林勇, 刘卿, 张军华, 常晓荣, 侯丹. 数字化导板引导种植修复的美学效果及疗效影响因素分析[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2025, 34(1): 48-53.
[8]	任丽娟, 刘佳怡, 李紫含, 方君怡, 崔璐, 汪振华. 3D打印双定位导板在前牙美学修复中的应用效果评价[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2024, 33(6): 627-632.
[9]	张国庆, 王卫国. 树脂与CAD/CAM全瓷贴面修复前牙间隙效果比较[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2024, 33(6): 647-650.
[10]	孙少宣. 中国口腔医学美学推动者: 深切怀念中国工程院邱蔚六院士[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2024, 33(4): 337-338.
[11]	陶星如, 张筠, 张佳园, 魏凌飞, 聂萍, 于德栋. 上颌无牙患者种植即刻过渡义齿修复后侧貌软组织的轮廓变化[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2024, 33(4): 373-380.
[12]	张筠, 陶星如, 王凤, 于德栋, 吴轶群. 上颌牙列缺失患者种植支持固定修复前后唇部美学区软组织的变化[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2024, 33(4): 381-386.
[13]	杨成栋, 向旭东. 牙龈生物型对上颌单颗后牙种植体周围骨组织、软组织健康及龈乳头美学效果的影响[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2024, 33(3): 290-294.
[14]	刘丽敏, 孙晶晶, 钱佳骏, 张春叶, 胡宇华, 李江. 171例颌面部骨软骨瘤及恶变病例临床病理分析[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2024, 33(3): 324-327.
[15]	李欣然, 陈彬, 李梦, 杜琛, 孟箭. PAR指数联合头影测量在骨性Ⅲ类错畸形疗效评价中的初步应用[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2023, 32(4): 417-421.