影响全口义齿患者美学满意度的客观因素分析

›› 2019, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (3): 135-138.

影响全口义齿患者美学满意度的客观因素分析

唐金鑫,王昱,王中熠,郭艳阳,王琛

南京医科大学附属口腔医院

收稿日期:2019-07-30 修回日期:2019-08-30 出版日期:2019-09-25 发布日期:2019-09-25
通讯作者: 王琛 E-mail:chwang9122@sina.com
基金资助:
江苏高校优势学科建设工程资金项目;江苏省干部保健科研项目

The analysis of objective factors affecting edentulous patients' aesthetic satisfaction with complete denture

Received:2019-07-30 Revised:2019-08-30 Online:2019-09-25 Published:2019-09-25
Contact: Chen -WANG E-mail:chwang9122@sina.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的：分析影响无牙颌患者全口义齿修复后面部美学满意度的客观因素，为提高全口义齿面部美学重建效果提供参考依据。方法：随机选取20例无牙颌患者，在全口义齿修复前和修复后三月，应用面部美学问卷调查患者对面部外观的满意度；采用3dMD面部扫描系统对患者面部软组织的变化进行数字化评估。此外，对患者修复前后主观满意度与面部特征变化的相关性进行分析。结果：全口义齿修复后，患者对正面面型和侧面轮廓的评分从5.87 ± 0.79和5.83 ± 0.84分别提高至8.74±0.54和8.94±0.46。患者面下部、鼻唇和颏唇高度分别从（59.77±4.14）mm、（23.27±2.48）mm和（36.70±3.00）mm增加至（62.01±3.89）mm、（24.29±2.51）mm和（38.15±2.84）mm，且具有显著性差异（P＜0.001），但患者面中部高度及形态无明显变化。修复前患者面部比例与正常面型相差11.43±7.58%，修复后相差7.49±5.90%；而鼻唇角则由118.98°±12.83°减小为112.20°±10.29°，此外，鼻唇角与正常面型的差值从22.17°±10.84°减小至15.24°±8.81°，上述变化均具有统计学意义（P＜0.001）。相关性分析结果显示：患者面部美学满意度与面部比例和鼻唇角与正常面型的差值呈高度或中度相关（P＜0.01）。结论：无牙颌患者面部美学满意度与面部比例和鼻唇角的变化密切相关，故在全口义齿修复过程中应尽量恢复上唇丰满度及合适的面部比例，从而达到良好的面部美学重建效果。

关键词: 全口义齿, 无牙颌, 面部美学, 3D摄影与测量技术

Abstract: Objective: To explore the objective factors that influence the facial esthetic satisfaction of edentulous patients with complete denture. Methods: 20 edentulous subjects were randomly selected. Before complete denture treatment and three months after treatment, patients were asked to complete the orofacial esthetic questionnaire, and 3D stereophotogrammetry was performed to evaluate the changes in facial appearance. Furthermore, the correlations between orofacial esthetic scores and facial features were assessed. Results: After complete denture treatment, esthetic scores of face and profile were increased from 5.87 ± 0.79 and 5.83 ± 0.84 to 8.74±0.54 and 8.94±0.46, respectively. Sn-Gn (Lower face height), Sn-St (Nose-interlabial) and St-Gn (Interlabial-chin) increased from (59.77±4.14) mm, (23.27±2.48) mm and (36.70±3.00) mm to (62.01±3.89) mm, (24.29±2.51) mm and (38.15±2.84) mm, respectively, moreover, all differences were significantly（P＜0.001）. However, no obvious difference was observed in the height and morphology of midfacial region. 3 months after treatment,∣(G-Sn / Sn-Gn)-average∣decreased from 11.43±7.58% to 7.49±5.90%, nasolabial angle reduced from 118.98°±12.83°to 112.20°±10.29°, while∣nasolabial angle-average∣lessened to 15.24°±8.81° from 22.17°±10.84°. These changes were statistically significant. In addition, the results of correlation analysis showed that the orofacial esthetic scores were highly or moderately correlated with the differences between edentulous subjects and normal population in the facial proportion and nasolabial angle（P＜0.01）. Conclusion: The subjective aesthetic scores of edentulous patients were highly correlated with the changes of facial proportion and nasolabial angle. Therefore, in the restoration of complete denture, the appropriate upper lip fullness and facial proportion should be restored as much as possible to achieve good results in aesthetic reconstruction.

Key words: edentulous jaw, complete denture, orofacial esthetics, 3D stereophotogrammetry

唐金鑫王昱王中熠郭艳阳王琛. 影响全口义齿患者美学满意度的客观因素分析[J]. , 2019, 10(3): 135-138.

参考文献 18

[1]	Bains JW, Elia JP.The role of facial skeletal augmentation and dental restoration in facial rejuvenation[J].Aesthetic Plast Surg, 1994, 18(3):243-246
[2]	Virdiya NM, Palaskar JN, Wankhade J, et al.Detachable cheek plumpers with different attachments for improving esthetics in a conventional complete denture: A clinical report[J].J Prosthet Dent, 2017, 117(5):592-596
[3]	Kawai Y, Muarakami H, Feine JS.Do traditional techniques produce better conventional complete dentures than simplified techniques? A 10-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial[J].J Dent, 2018, 74:30-36
[4]	Yuan F, Cheng C, Dai N, et al.Prediction of aesthetic reconstruction effects in edentulous patients[J].Sci Rep, 2017, 7(1):18077-
[5]	Roumanas ED.The social solution-denture esthetics,phonetics,and function[J].J Prosthodont, 2009, 18(2):112-115
[6]	McCunniff M, Liu W, Dawson D, et al.Patients' esthetic expectations and satisfaction with complete dentures[J].J Prosthet Dent, 2017, 118(2):159-165
[7]	Tang L, Lund JP, Taché R, et al.A within-subject comparison of mandibular long-bar and hybrid implant-supported prostheses: psychometric evaluation and patient preference[J].J Dent Res, 1997, 76(10):1675-1683
[8]	Liu Y, Kau CH, Pan F, et al.A 3-dimensional anthropometric evaluation of facial morphology among Chinese and Greek population[J].J Craniofac Surg, 2013, 24(4):e353-e358
[9]	Wamalwa P, Amisi SK, Wang Y, et al.Angular photogrammetric comparison of the soft-tissue facial profile of Kenyans and Chinese[J].J Craniofac Surg, 2011, 22(3):1064-1072
[10]	李雪萍.浅谈容貌年轻化与健康的关系[J].蛇志, 2012, 24(1):92-
[11]	蒋健羽，于泉，沈刚.三维摄影系统测量颌面软组织的原理、应用和精确性评价[J].口腔材料器械杂志, 2018, 27(2):101-104
[12]	Metzger TE, Kula KS, Eckert GJ, et al.Orthodontic soft-tissue parameters: a comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and the 3dMD imaging system[J].Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2013, 144(5):672-681
[13]	雷世泽，吴奇珍，石青梅，等.面部美学比例变迁的调查[J].中南大学学报（医学版）, 2016, 41(12):1358-1361
[14]	Menapace SE, Rinchuse DJ, Zullo T, et al.The dentofacial morphology of bruxers versus non-bruxers[J].Angle Orthod, 1994, 64(1):43-52
[15]	Sukhia RH, Sukhia HR, Fida M, et al.Nasolabial angle: a perception of treatment needs[J].Int J Orthod Milwaukee, 2012, 23(2):41-44
[16]	Johnston DJ, Hunt O, Johnston CD, et al.The influence of lower face vertical proportion on facial attractiveness[J].Eur J Orthod, 2005, 27(4):349-354
[17]	Abu Arqoub SH, Al-Khateeb SN.Perception of facial profile attractiveness of different antero-posterior and vertical proportions[J].Eur J Orthod, 2011, 33(1):103-111
[18]	孙娜, 杨四维.鼻唇角与正畸美学关系[J].西南军医, 2013, 15(2):169-171