Comparative study of smile analysis by subjective and computerized methods.
Comparative study of smile analysis by subjective and computerized methods.
复制标题
主观和计算机方法微笑分析的比较研究。
DOI：
10.2341/06-24
复制
发表时间：
2006
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
F. M. Flório
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Basting;Rita de Cássia Silva da Trindade;F. M. Flório
目的
这项研究比较了：1)接受过高级培训的专家和普通牙医对微笑的主观分析；2)接受过高级培训的专家和普通牙医对微笑或与面部相关的主观分析；3)接受过高级培训的专家使用计算机对微笑进行的主观分析，验证了中线、唇线、微笑线、连合和黄金比例。
方法
样本包括100名具有自然牙列的成年人；拍摄了200张照片(100张微笑照片和100张整张脸)。采用计算机辅助分析软件，结合2组专业人员(3名普通牙科医生和3名高级专科医生)的主观分析，采用正中线、唇线、微笑线、连合线和黄金比例等评价因素进行分析。微笑本身以及与整个面部相关的微笑被专业人士记录为令人愉快或不愉快。
结果
McNemar检验显示，与普通牙医相比，专家进行的主观分析有非常显著的差异(p=0.0000)。在两组牙科专业人员之间，微笑的主观分析与面部的主观分析之间存在极显著差异(p=0.0000)。当比较专家的计算机分析和主观分析时，麦克内马尔检验显示，除中线(p=0.1951)外，评估的所有因素都有统计学差异。为了建立微笑的和谐，不可能在所分析的因素之间建立更大或更小的相关性。
PURPOSE
This study compared: 1) the subjective analyses of a smile done by specialists with advanced training and by general dentists; 2) the subjective analysis of a smile, or that associated with the face, by specialists with advanced training and general dentists; 3) subjective analysis using a computerized analysis of the smile by specialists with advanced training, verifying the midline, labial line, smile line, the line between commissures and the golden proportion.
METHODS
The sample consisted of 100 adults with natural dentition; 200 photographs were taken (100 of the smile and 100 of the entire face). Computerized analysis using AutoCAD software was performed, together with the subjective analyses of 2 groups of professionals (3 general dentists and 3 specialists with advanced training), using the following assessment factors: the midline, labial line, smile line, line between the commissures and the golden proportion. The smile itself and the smile associated with the entire face were recorded as being agreeable or not agreeable by the professionals.
RESULTS
The McNemar test showed a highly significant difference (p=0.0000) among the subjective analyses performed by specialists compared to general dentists. Between the 2 groups of dental professionals, there were highly significant differences (p=0.0000) found between the subjective analyses of the smile and that of the face. The McNemar test showed statistical differences in all factors assessed, with the exception of the midline (p=0.1951), when the computerized analysis and subjective analysis of the specialists were compared. In order to establish harmony of the smile, it was not possible to establish a greater or lesser relevance among the factors analyzed.