American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2023
Comparing the esthetic impact of virtual mandibular advancement, bichectomy, jawline, and their combination.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Camcı Hasan, Salmanpour Farhad
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of mandibular advancement (MA), bichectomy, jawline, and their combination on facial attractiveness. The 3-dimensional (3D) visual sculpting is a method to perform the task.
METHODS: FaceBuilder software, a Blender 2.93 LTS add-on, was used to generate a 3D head and face model of a female patient with Class II Division I malocclusion. MA, bichectomy, jawline, and combination modifications were performed on the model using a 3D virtual sculpting tab, and 4 new head models were created. Five hundred thirteen participants scored lateral and frontal views of the modified and reference models. The Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, and Wilcoxon tests were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: MA modification received the highest frontal and lateral image scores. The raters found the jawline frontal photograph to be the least attractive. Significant differences were observed between the lateral and frontal attractiveness scores in all modifications except bichectomy. The combination of 3 modifications in both frontal and lateral images received the second-lowest score.
CONCLUSIONS: Facial esthetic modifications receive different attractiveness scores in lateral or frontal evaluations. MA outperforms bichectomy and jawline augmentation in terms of improving facial attractiveness.
METHODS: FaceBuilder software, a Blender 2.93 LTS add-on, was used to generate a 3D head and face model of a female patient with Class II Division I malocclusion. MA, bichectomy, jawline, and combination modifications were performed on the model using a 3D virtual sculpting tab, and 4 new head models were created. Five hundred thirteen participants scored lateral and frontal views of the modified and reference models. The Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, and Wilcoxon tests were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: MA modification received the highest frontal and lateral image scores. The raters found the jawline frontal photograph to be the least attractive. Significant differences were observed between the lateral and frontal attractiveness scores in all modifications except bichectomy. The combination of 3 modifications in both frontal and lateral images received the second-lowest score.
CONCLUSIONS: Facial esthetic modifications receive different attractiveness scores in lateral or frontal evaluations. MA outperforms bichectomy and jawline augmentation in terms of improving facial attractiveness.