骨性Ⅱ类成年患者不同治疗方式下的侧貌审美评价

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2017.04.013

上海口腔医学 ›› 2017, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (4): 414-418.doi: 10.19439/j.sjos.2017.04.013

骨性Ⅱ类成年患者不同治疗方式下的侧貌审美评价

杨静云¹, 何昌平², 张翼², 黄倩倩¹, 夏熹¹, 王华桥¹

1.重庆医科大学附属口腔医院正畸科,口腔疾病与生物医学重庆市重点实验室,重庆市高校市级口腔生物医学工程重点实验室,重庆 401147；
2.重庆市协尔口腔,重庆 400042

收稿日期:2017-01-16 修回日期:2017-03-16 出版日期:2017-08-25 发布日期:2017-09-01
通讯作者: 王华桥,E-mail：muscle_tina@163.com
作者简介:杨静云（1991-）,男,硕士,E-mail：584855901@qq.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金（81570979）; 重庆市卫计生委科研项目（2013-2-069,2015MSXM051,2012-2-131）

Evaluation of profile aesthetics of skeletal Class Ⅱ patients with different treatment methods

YANG Jing-yun¹, HE Chang-ping², ZHANG Yi², HUANG Qian-qian¹, XIA Xi¹, WANG Hua-qiao¹

1.Department of Orthodontics, Affiliated Hospital of Stomatology, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases and Biomedical Sciences, Chongqing Municipal Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Engineering of Higher Education. Chongqing 401147;
2. Chongqing Sharedent Clinic. Chongqing 400042, China

Received:2017-01-16 Revised:2017-03-16 Online:2017-08-25 Published:2017-09-01

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的评价骨性Ⅱ类上颌前突下颌后缩成年患者不同治疗方式下的侧貌美观。方法选取1例骨性Ⅱ类上颌前突下颌后缩正畸代偿治疗后的成年女性作为研究对象,拍摄头颅侧位片和侧貌像,运用Photoshop软件模拟得到正畸代偿治疗结合不同前移程度的颏成形手术及正畸-正颌联合治疗的侧貌图共6张,由专业和非专业人员对其评分,采用SPSS22.0 软件包对数据进行单因素方差分析及SNK检验。结果正畸-正颌联合治疗最为美观,正畸代偿治疗结合颏成形手术治疗颏部前移4 mm时次之,前移8 mm时美观程度较正畸代偿治疗差。结论正畸-正颌联合治疗仍为骨性Ⅱ类上颌前突下颌后缩患者改善侧貌美观的最佳治疗方式。颏成形手术作为一种正畸代偿治疗后的辅助治疗手段,可在一定程度上提高面部的协调及美观,但美学效果不能与正畸-正颌联合治疗相媲美。

关键词: 骨性Ⅱ, 类错畸形, 颏成形术, 正畸-正颌联合治疗, 审美评价

Abstract: To study the aesthetic appearance of skeletal Class Ⅱ patients with maxillary protrusion and mandibular retrusion treated with different methods. METHODS: The facial profile photographs and lateral cephalometric radiographs of a Chinese woman suffering from skeletal Class Ⅱ with maxillary protrusion and mandibular retrusion was digitized.The digital images were modified to obtain orthodontic compensatory treatment, genioplasty with different advancement ranges and orthognathic treatment comprising 6 profiles by Photoshop software,orthodontic professionals and non-professionals were chosen to score the pictures. Post hoc tests were done with ANONA and the Student Keuls method to analyze the data Using SPSS22.0 software package. RESULTS: The profile with the highest score was the picture treated by orthognathic and orthodontic treatment. The profile with genioplasty (advancement of 4 mm) took the second place. When the advancement distance of genioplasty was 8 mm, the score was under the score of orthodontic compensatory treatment profile. CONCLUSIONS: Orthognathic-orthodontic treatment of skeletal Class Ⅱ is still the best treatment option to improve facial aesthetics. Genioplasty, as a adjuvant treatment, improves the appearance based on compensatory orthodontic treatment to some extent, but not comparable to orthognathic-orthodontic treatment.

Key words: Skeletal Class Ⅱ, malocclusion, Genoplasty, Orthognathic-orthodontic treatment, Aesthetic evaluation

中图分类号:

R783.5

杨静云, 何昌平, 张翼, 黄倩倩, 夏熹, 王华桥. 骨性Ⅱ类成年患者不同治疗方式下的侧貌审美评价[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2017, 26(4): 414-418.

YANG Jing-yun, HE Chang-ping, ZHANG Yi, HUANG Qian-qian, XIA Xi, WANG Hua-qiao. Evaluation of profile aesthetics of skeletal Class Ⅱ patients with different treatment methods[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2017, 26(4): 414-418.

参考文献

[1] 傅民魁. 口腔正畸学[J]. 中国医学文摘·口腔医学, 2009, 24(1): 39-46.
[2] Sarver DM, Proffit WR, Ackerman JL. Diagnosis and treatment planning[C]//Orthodontics. Current principals and treatment [M]. St Louis, MO: Mosby, 1994.
[3] Kinzinger G, Frye L, Diedrich P. Class Ⅱ treatment in adults: comparing camouflage orthodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthognathic surgery-a cephalometric study to evaluate various therapeutic effects [J]. J Orofac Orthop, 2009, 70(1): 63-91.
[4] Tucker MR. Orthognathic surgery versus orthodontic camouflage in the treatment of mandibular deficiency[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 1995, 53(5): 572-578.
[5] Joss CU, Vassalli IM. Stability after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy setback surgery with rigid internal fixation: a systematic review [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2008, 66(8): 1634-43.
[6] 沈映勋, 张策, 曹德君. 颏成形术发展及现况 [J]. 组织工程与重建外科, 2015, 11 (2): 116-119.
[7] 蓝顺清, 胡兴宇, 李朝明, 等. 四川正常成人X线头影测量研究Ⅱ [J]. 局解手术学杂志, 2001, 10(3): 258-260.
[8] 何昌平, 邓锋, 王华桥, 等. 不同切牙定位方式对骨性Ⅱ类患者审美评价的影响 [J]. 口腔医学研究, 2016, 32(5): 497-501.
[9] Rosen HM. Aesthetic guidelines in genioplasty: the role of facial disproportion [J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 1995, 95(3): 463-469.
[10] Turkkahraman H, Gokalp H. Facial profile preferences among various layers of Turkish population[J]. Angle Orthod, 2004, 74(5): 640-647.
[11] Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion [J]. Am J Orthod, 1972, 62(3): 296-309.
[12] De Smit A, Dermaut L. Soft-tissue profile preference [J]. Am J Orthod, 1984, 86(1): 67-73.
[13] Cao L, Zhang K, Bai D. Effect of maxillary incisor labiolingual inclination and anteroposterior position on smiling profile esthetics [J]. Angle Orthod, 2011, 81(1): 121-129.
[14] Schlosser JB, Preston CB, Lampasso J. The effects of computer-aided anteroposterior maxillary incisor movement on ratings of facial attractiveness [J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2005, 127(1): 17-24.
[15] Rosen HM. Aesthetic guidelines in genioplasty: the role of facial disproportion [J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 1995, 95(3): 463-469.
[16] Guyuron B. MOC-PS(SM) CME article: genioplasty [J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2008, 121(4 Suppl): 1-7.
[17] Gonzalfz-ulloa M. Quantitative principles in cosmetic surgery of the face (profileplasty)[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 1962, 29: 186-198.
[18] Kerr WJ, O'Donnell JM. Panel perception of facial attractiveness [J]. Br J Orthod, 1990, 17(4): 299-304.

骨性Ⅱ类成年患者不同治疗方式下的侧貌审美评价

Evaluation of profile aesthetics of skeletal Class Ⅱ patients with different treatment methods

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 14

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	张晨, 王宏伟, 李彪, 曹健, 王兴, 王旭东. 双颌同期颏成形与单纯颏成形术后稳定性的三维测量分析[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2023, 32(4): 380-384.
[2]	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.
[3]	聂萍, 姜宁, 丁琴凤, 张雷, 蔡鸣, 朱敏, 王旭东. 24例骨性Ⅲ类伴偏颌畸形患者隐形正畸-正颌联合治疗效果分析[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2022, 31(1): 62-66.
[4]	马晓晴, 赵宁, 项飞, 周曼莉, 钱文昊. 固定式Twin-block矫治青春期骨性II类错的临床效果评价[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2021, 30(4): 414-418.
[5]	毛晓燕, 杨佳音, 李佳, 徐睿. 成人骨性Ⅱ类错畸形上气道与上、下颌骨形态分析[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2021, 30(4): 419-423.
[6]	曹熔锴, 陈孛蓓, 李琼, 刘伟才. 应用3D数字化面部重建评估上颌尖牙垂直位置对微笑美学的影响[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2020, 29(6): 611-616.
[7]	顾永佳, 陆胜男, 高美琴, 顾鑫宇, 石慧, 马俊青. 青少年安氏I、Ⅱ类错畸形患者髁突位置的比较[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2016, 25(6): 694-696.
[8]	张楠, 汪隼, 郑为, 陈敏, 沈玉凤, 闫红娟. FRⅢ矫治功能性和早期骨性安氏Ⅲ类错的硬组织变化[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2016, 25(6): 725-728.
[9]	王宏伟, 李丽艳, 齐素青, 闫明, 张超, 任素峰, 班建东. 骨性Ⅲ类畸形正颌外科术后咽腔间隙短期及长期影响的锥形束CT分析[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2016, 25(4): 487-491.
[10]	宫耀,李佩伦,汪虹虹,于泉,魏斌,沈刚. 下颌前导矫形与单纯拔牙矫治骨性Ⅱ类错中软组织线距测量与分析[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2015, 24(2): 232-235.
[11]	宫耀, 于泉, 李佩伦, 汪虹虹, 魏斌, 沈刚. 下颌前导矫形与单纯拔牙矫治对骨性Ⅱ类错颌畸形的疗效评价[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2014, 23(5): 597-600.
[12]	孙良, 王博, 房兵. 骨性Ⅲ类错前牙区牙槽骨开裂和牙槽骨开窗发生率的锥形束CT研究[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2013, 22(4): 418-422.
[13]	张鸿军, 嵇国平, 沈刚. 利用颧牙槽嵴区种植钉矫正边缘性II类错畸形[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2013, 22(3): 310-315.
[14]	陈析华 , 华咏梅, 谢兴潜, 俞晓佳, 王健, 刘李明. Empower自锁托槽治疗安氏II1拔牙病例的疗效评价[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2013, 22(3): 316-321.