구강회복응용과학지 (Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science)

  • 제29권4호
  • /
  • Pages.347-358
  • /
  • 2013
  • /
  • 2384-4353(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-4272(eISSN)
대한턱관절교합학회 (Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

측모 사진상에서 Subnasale의 이상적인 위치에 관한 주관적 평가

Subjective Evaluation about Ideal Position of the Subnasale on Lateral Photos

  • 김이동 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학교실) ;
  • 정동화 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학교실) ;
  • 차경석 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학교실) ;
  • 이진우 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학교실) ;
  • 이상민 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학교실)
  • Kim, Yi-Dong (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Chung, Dong-Hwa (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Cha, Kyung-Suk (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Lee, Jin-Woo (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Min (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University)
  • 투고 : 2013.09.25
  • 심사 : 2013.11.03
  • 발행 : 2013.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

측모의 연조직 분석 시 Subnasale는 중요한 기준점으로 사용되지만 이상적인 위치에 대한 평가한 연구는 드물다. 본 연구의 목적은 한국인 측모에서 Subnasale의 위치 변화에 따른 심미적 안모에 대한 객관적 기준을 제시 하는 것이며, 추가적으로 전문가 집단과 일반 대중 간의 안모 선호도 인식에 어떤 차이가 존재하는지 평가 하는 것이다. 이번 연구를 위해 채득한 20대 여성 사진 중에서 전문가에 의해 결정된 적절한 측면 안모 비율로 판단되는 1명의 측모 사진을 선정하였다. 선정된 사진은 비순각을 유지하며 진성 수직선에 수직한 평면상에서 Subnasale을 전, 후방으로 변화시켰다. 합성된 사진은 전문가 집단(교정의사 9명)과 일반 대중(126명)에게 제시되어 각각의 선호도를 VAS상에 표시하도록 하였다. 다음의 결론을 얻었다. 1. Subnasale의 이상적인 위치는 Lateral canthus~Subnasale : Subnasale~Pronasale가 1.769 : 1을 이룰 때 이다. 2. 각도상 Nasion을 통과하는 진성 수직선과 Subnasale가 $5.5^{\circ}$를 이룰 때 이다. 3. 전문가 집단은 모든 비율 변화를 인지하였으나, 일반 대중은 1.571 : 1과 1.769 : 1 사이의 변화를 인지하지 못하였다.

When analyzing soft tissue of the profile, Subnasale is often used as an important reference point. But there are few studies on the ideal position of the Subnasale. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to present an objective reference of the esthetic face relating to the change of Subnasale position in Koreans' profile, and also to determine whether there is concordance between professionals and laypersons in their perception of facial attractiveness. The one determined as appropriate profile portion by experts of pictures taken in women in 20s was selected. The photograph was modified changing the Subnasale anteroposteriorly on the plane perpendicular to the true vertical line, while maintaining the nasolabial angle. The photographs were presented to a group of professionals (9 orthodontists) and 126 laypersons, who were asked to assess the facial attractiveness of the photographs on a VAS independently. The conclusion was obtained. 1. The ideal position of the Subnasale is when the ratio of the distance Lateral canthus~Subnasale : Subnasale~Pronasale is 1.769 : 1. 2. The ideal degrees between the true vertical line passing through Nasion and Subnasale is $5.5^{\circ}$ 3. The professionals recognized every change in the ratio, but the laypersons couldn't differentiate between the change from 1.571 : 1 to 1.769 : 1.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Baldwin DC. Appearance and aesthetics in oral health. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1980;9:244-56.
  2. Sarver DM. The esthetic impact of orthodontics : Planning treatment to meet patient's needs. J Am Dent Assoc 1993;124:99-102.
  3. Papel ID. Quantitative facial esthetics evaluation with computer imaging. Facial Plast surg 1009;7:35-44.
  4. Robinson SW, Speidel TM. Soft tissue profile change produced by reduction of mandibular prognathism. Angle Orthod 1972;42:227-35.
  5. Hodaway RA. A soft tissue cephalometric analysis and its use on orthodontic treatment planning Part I. Am J Orthod 1983;84:1-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(83)90144-6
  6. Hodaway RA. A soft tissue cephalometric analysis and its use on orthodontic treatment planning Part II. Am J Orthod 1983;85:279-63.
  7. Langlois JH, Roggman LA. Attractive face are only average. Psychological Sci 1990;1:115-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00079.x
  8. Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Hreczko TA. Anthropometric proportion in the upper lip-lower lip-chin area of the lower face in young white adults. Am J Orthod 1984;86:52-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90276-8
  9. Alley TR, Cunningham MR. Average face are attractive, but very attractive face are not average. Psychological Sci 1991;2:123-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00113.x
  10. Perret DI, May K. Attractive characteristics of female face. Nature Lond 1994;38:239-42.
  11. Peck H, Pech S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 1970;40:284-318.
  12. Riketts RM. Planning treatment on the base of facial pattern and an estimate of its growth. Angle Orthod 1957:27:14-37.
  13. Wuerpel EH. On facial balance and harmony. Angle Orthod 1937;7:81-9.
  14. Ioi H, Nakata S. Anteroposterior lip position of the most favored Japanese facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2005;128:206-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.030
  15. Soh J, Chew MT. A comparative assessment of the perception of Chinese facial profile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2005;127:692-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.018
  16. Arezoo J, Mohammad B, Yekta A. Evaluation of the divine proportion in the facial profile of young females. Indian J Dent Res 2008;19;292-296 https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.44530
  17. Romani KL, Agahi F. Evaluation of horizontal and vertical difference in facial profile by orthodontists and lay people. Angle Orthod 1993;63:175-82.
  18. Prahl-Andersen B, Boersma H. Perception of dentofacial morphology by lay persons, general dentists and orthodontists. J Am Dent Assoc 1979;98:209-12. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1979.0456
  19. Bell R, Kiyk HA. Perception of facial profile and their influences on the decision to undergo orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod 1985;88:323-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(85)90132-0
  20. Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod 1967;53;262-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(67)90022-X
  21. Scheideman GB, Bell WH, Legan HL, Finn RA, Reisch JS. Cephalometric analysis of dentofacial normals. Am J orthod 1980;78;404-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(80)90021-4
  22. Arnett GW, Jelic JS, Kim J, Cummings DR, Beress A, Worley CM, Chung B, Bergman R. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis: diagnosis and treatment planning of dentofacial deformity. Am J Orthod 1999;116;239-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70234-9
  23. Powell N, Humphreys B. Proportions of the Esthetics. New York, Thiemestratton Inc, 1984.
  24. Martin JG. Racial ethnocentrism and judgement of beauty. J Soc Psychol 1964;63:59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1964.9922213
  25. Iliffe AH. A study of preferences in feminine beauty. Brit J Psychol 1960;51:276.
  26. Udry JR. Structural correlates of feminine beauty preferences in Britain and United States : a comparison. Socio and Social Res 1965;49:330.
  27. Cochrane SM, Cunningham SJ. Perception of facial appearance by orthodontists and general public. J Clin Orthod 1997;31:164-8.
  28. Dunlevy HA, White RP, Proffit WR. Professional and lay judgement of facial esthetics changes following orthognathic surgery. Int J Adult 1987;2:151-8.
  29. Lines PA, Lines RR. Profilemetrics and facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 1978;73:648-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90225-7
  30. Kerr WJS. Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod 1990;17:299-304. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.17.4.299
  31. Howella DJ, Shawo. The validity and reliability of rating of dental and facial attractiveness for epidemiologic use. Am J Orthod 1985;88:402-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(85)90067-3
  32. Phillips C. Perception of facial attractiveness by patients, peers, and professionals. Int J Adult Orthod 1995;10:127-35.
  33. Burcal RG, Laskin DM. Recognition of profile change after simulated orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofacial surg 1987;45:666-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(87)90304-1
  34. Julie C. Faure. et al. The influence of different facial components on facial aesthetics. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/24.1.1
  35. Phillips C, Tulloch C, Dann C. Rating of facial attractiveness. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1992;20:214-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1992.tb01719.x
  36. Aitken RCB. Measurement of feeling using visual analogue scale. Proc R Soc Med 1969;62:17-21.
  37. Sandra AM, Marina LV, Mladen S. Analysis of the soft tissue facial profile by means of angular measurements. Eur J Orthod 2008;30;135-140. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm116
  38. Siddik M, Abdullah D, Tancan U, Naci C. Angular photogrammetric analysis of the soft tissue facial profile of Turkish adults. Eur J Orthod 2009;31;174-179. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn082