RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      선택해제
      • 좁혀본 항목 보기순서

        • 원문유무
        • 원문제공처
        • 등재정보
        • 학술지명
        • 주제분류
        • 발행연도
        • 작성언어
        • 저자
          펼치기

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      더보기
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • Facial profile parameters and their relative influence on bilabial prominence and the perceptions of facial profile attractiveness

        Erin Stewart Denize,Fraser McDonald,Martyn Sherriff,Farhad B. Naini 대한치과교정학회 2014 대한치과교정학회지 Vol.44 No.4

        Objective: To evaluate the relative importance of bilabial prominence in relation to other facial profile parameters in a normal population. Methods: Profile stimulus images of 38 individuals (28 female and 10 male; ages 19?25 years) were shown to an unrelated group of first-year students (n = 42; ages 18?24 years). The images were individually viewed on a 17-inch monitor. The observers received standardized instructions before viewing. A six-question questionnaire was completed using a Likert-type scale. The responses were analyzed by ordered logistic regression to identify associations between profile characteristics and observer preferences. The Bayesian Information Criterion was used to select variables that explained observer preferences most accurately. Results: Nasal, bilabial, and chin prominences; the nasofrontal angle; and lip curls had the greatest effect on overall profile attractiveness perceptions. The lip-chin-throat angle and upper lip curl had the greatest effect on forehead prominence perceptions. The bilabial prominence, nasolabial angle (particularly the lower component), and mentolabial angle had the greatest effect on nasal prominence perceptions. The bilabial prominence, nasolabial angle, chin prominence, and submental length had the greatest effect on lip prominence perceptions. The bilabial prominence, nasolabial angle, mentolabial angle, and submental length had the greatest effect on chin prominence perceptions. Conclusions: More prominent lips, within normal limits, may be considered more attractive in the profile view. Profile parameters have a greater influence on their neighboring aesthetic units but indirectly influence related profile parameters, endorsing the importance of achieving an aesthetic balance between relative prominences of all aesthetic units of the facial profile.

      • KCI등재

        Mentolabial angle and aesthetics: a quantitative investigation of idealized and normative values

        Naini, Farhad B.,Cobourne, Martyn T.,Garagiola, Umberto,McDonald, Fraser,Wertheim, David Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Re 2017 Maxillofacial Plastic Reconstructive Surgery Vol.39 No.-

        Background: This study is a quantitative evaluation of the influence of the mentolabial angle on perceived attractiveness and threshold values of desire for surgery. Methods: The mentolabial angle of an idealized silhouette male Caucasian profile image was altered incrementally between $84^{\circ}$ and $162^{\circ}$. Images were rated on a Likert scale by pretreatment orthognathic patients (n = 75), lay people (n = 75) and clinicians (n = 35). Results: A mentolabial angle of approximately $107^{\circ}$ to $118^{\circ}$ was deemed the most attractive, with a range of up to $140^{\circ}$ deemed acceptable. Angles above or below this range were perceived as unattractive, and anything outside the range of below $98^{\circ}$ or above $162^{\circ}$ was deemed very unattractive. A deep mentolabial angle ($84^{\circ}$) or an almost flat angle ($162^{\circ}$) was deemed the least attractive. In terms of threshold values of desire for surgery, for all groups, a threshold value of ${\geq}162^{\circ}$ and ${\leq}84^{\circ}$ indicated a preference for surgery, although clinicians were least likely to suggest surgery. The clinician group was the most consistent, and for many of the images, there was some variation in agreement between clinicians and lay people as to whether surgery is required. There was even more variability in the assessments for the patient group. Conclusions: It is recommended that in orthognathic and genioplasty planning, the range of normal variability of the mentolabial angle, in terms of observer acceptance, is taken into account as well as threshold values of desire for surgery. The importance of using patients as observers in attractiveness research is stressed.

      • KCI등재

        Validation of a new three-dimensional imaging system using comparative craniofacial anthropometry

        Naini, Farhad B.,Akram, Sarah,Kepinska, Julia,Garagiola, Umberto,McDonald, Fraser,Wertheim, David Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Re 2017 Maxillofacial Plastic Reconstructive Surgery Vol.39 No.-

        Background: The aim of this study is to validate a new three-dimensional craniofacial stereophotogrammetry imaging system (3dMDface) through comparison with manual facial surface anthropometry. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between craniofacial measurements using anthropometry vs. the 3dMDface system. Methods: Facial images using the new 3dMDface system were taken from six randomly selected subjects, sitting in natural head position, on six separate occasions each 1 week apart, repeated twice at each sitting. Exclusion criteria were excess facial hair, facial piercings and undergoing current dentofacial treatment. 3dMDvultus software allowed facial landmarks to be marked and measurements recorded. The same measurements were taken using manual anthropometry, using soluble eyeliner to pinpoint landmarks, and sliding and spreading callipers and measuring tape to measure distances. The setting for the investigation was a dental teaching hospital and regional (secondary and tertiary care) cleft centre. The main outcome measure was comparison of the craniofacial measurements using the two aforementioned techniques. Results: The results showed good agreement between craniofacial measurements using the 3dMDface system compared with manual anthropometry. For all measurements, except chin height and labial fissure width, there was a greater variability with the manual method compared to 3D assessment. Overall, there was a significantly greater variability in manual compared with 3D assessments (p < 0.02). Conclusions: The 3dMDface system is validated for craniofacial measurements.

      연관 검색어 추천

      이 검색어로 많이 본 자료

      활용도 높은 자료

      해외이동버튼