口腔修复美学评价量表的研究进展

doi:10.13591/j.cnki.kqyx.2023.06.015

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

美学和功能是口腔修复的两大终极目标。美学效果是评估口腔修复成败的重要指标之一。通过口腔美学评价量表可以对美学效果进行量化评价。口腔美学评价分为客观评价和主观评价。客观评价往往由临床医师或研究者发起,而主观评价则是患者主观评判的体现。目前仅种植修复有公认的美学评价量表,其余各类修复方式的美学评价系统尚未达成共识。该文拟对牙体缺损和牙列缺损修复常用的美学评价量表进行综述,为临床口腔美学评价提供参考。

关键词: 口腔美学, 口腔修复, 美学评价

Abstract:

Aesthetics and function are two ultimate goals of prosthodontics. Aesthetic result is one of the crucial factors determining the success or failure of prosthodontic treatment. Dental aesthetic evaluation scale, which is a vital way to quantify the aesthetic result, can be divided into objective evaluation and subjective evaluation. The former is often initiated by clinicians or researchers, and the latter is the reflection of patients’ subjective evaluation. At present, only implant restoration has a recognized aesthetic scale, and there is no consensus on the aesthetic evaluation systems of other restoration methods. This paper reviews aesthetic scales used in the restoration of tooth defect and dentition defect, so as to provide reference for clinical dental aesthetic evaluation.

Key words: dental esthetics, prosthodontics, esthetic evaluation

中图分类号:

R783

邓淞文, 邵湘庭, 徐剑浩, 王朝阳, 傅柏平. 口腔修复美学评价量表的研究进展[J]. 口腔医学, 2023, 43(6): 561-566.

DENG Songwen, SHAO Xiangting, XU Jianhao, WANG Chaoyang, FU Baiping. Research progress on aesthetic evaluation scale in oral rehabilitation[J]. Stomatology, 2023, 43(6): 561-566.

图/表 2

表1

表2

参考文献 50

[1]	Mursid S, Maharani D, Kusdhany L. Measuring patient's orofacial estheticsin in prosthodontics:A scoping review of a current instrument[J]. Open Dent J, 2020, 14(1):161-170. doi: 10.2174/1874210602014010161
[2]	Larsson P, Bondemark L, Häggman-Henrikson B. The impact of oro-facial appearance on oral health-related quality of life:A systematic review[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2021, 48(3):271-281. doi: 10.1111/joor.v48.3
[3]	Zaidi AB, Karim AA, Mohiuddin S, et al. Effects of dental aesthetics on psycho-social wellbeing among students of health sciences[J]. J Pak Med Assoc, 2020, 70(6):1002-1005. pmid: 32810096
[4]	Bjelopavlovic M, Weyhrauch M, Erbe C, et al. Influencing factors on aesthetics:Highly controlled study based on eye movement and the forensic aspects in computer-based assessment of visual appeal in upper front teeth[J]. Appl Sci, 2021, 11(15):6797. doi: 10.3390/app11156797
[5]	Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2005, 9(4):215-232. doi: 10.1007/s00784-005-0018-z
[6]	Ryge G. Clinical criteria[J]. Int Dent J, 1980, 30(4):347-358. pmid: 6935165
[7]	叶红强, 柳玉树, 王冠博, 等. 三维数字化仿真设计与实现技术在前牙美学修复中的应用[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2020, 55(10):729-736.
[8]	谢慧心, 战德松. 全解剖式氧化锆全瓷冠用于固定义齿美学修复临床评价[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2017, 10(8):467-471. doi: 10.19538/j.kq.2017.08.005
[9]	Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, et al. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials[J]. Int Dent J, 2007, 57(5):300-302. pmid: 17992913
[10]	Kim D, Ahn SY, Kim J, et al. Interrater and intrarater reliability of FDI criteria applied to photographs of posterior tooth-colored restorations[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2017, 118(1):18-25. e4. doi: S0022-3913(16)30524-8 pmid: 28024817
[11]	Fürhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, et al. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns:The pink esthetic score[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2005, 16(6):639-644. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01193.x
[12]	Chen J, Chiang CY, Zhang YQ. Esthetic evaluation of natural teeth in anterior maxilla using the pink and white esthetic scores[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2018, 20(5):770-777. doi: 10.1111/cid.2018.20.issue-5
[13]	Belser UC, Grütter L, Vailati F, et al. Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria:A cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores[J]. J Periodontol, 2009, 80(1):140-151. doi: 10.1902/jop.2009.080435 pmid: 19228100
[14]	Jones AR, Martin W. Comparing pink and white esthetic scores to layperson perception in the single-tooth implant patient[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2014, 29(6):1348-1353. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3785 pmid: 25397797
[15]	Afrashtehfar KI, Assery MKA, Bryant SR. Aesthetic parameters and patient-perspective assessment tools for maxillary anterior single implants[J]. Int J Dent, 2021, 2021:6684028.
[16]	Lanza A, di Francesco F, de Marco G, et al. Clinical application of the PES/WES index on natural teeth:Case report and literature review[J]. Case Rep Dent, 2017, 2017:9659062.
[17]	Meijer HJA, Stellingsma K, Meijndert L, et al. A new index for rating aesthetics of implant-supported single crowns and adjacent soft tissues:The Implant Crown Aesthetic Index[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2005, 16(6):645-649. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01128.x
[18]	Tettamanti S, Millen C, Gavric J, et al. Esthetic evaluation of implant crowns and peri-implant soft tissue in the anterior maxilla:Comparison and reproducibility of three different indices[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2016, 18(3):517-526. doi: 10.1111/cid.2016.18.issue-3
[19]	Hof M, Umar N, Budas N, et al. Evaluation of implant esthetics using eight objective indices-Comparative analysis of reliability and validity[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2018, 29(7):697-706. doi: 10.1111/clr.13261
[20]	Vilhjálmsson VH, Klock KS, Størksen K, et al. Aesthetics of implant-supported single anterior maxillary crowns evaluated by objective indices and participants' perceptions[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2011, 22(12):1399-1403. doi: 10.1111/clr.2011.22.issue-12
[21]	Vaidya S, Ho YLE, Hao J, et al. Evaluation of the influence exerted by different dental specialty backgrounds and measuring instrument reproducibility on esthetic aspects of maxillary implant-supported single crown[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2015, 26(3):250-256.
[22]	Arunyanak SP, Pollini A, Ntounis A, et al. Clinician assessments and patient perspectives of single-tooth implant restorations in the esthetic zone of the maxilla:A systematic review[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2017, 118(1):10-17. doi: S0022-3913(16)30691-6 pmid: 28385430
[23]	Voutilainen A, Pitkäaho T, Kvist T, et al. How to ask about patient satisfaction?The visual analogue scale is less vulnerable to confounding factors and ceiling effect than a symmetric Likert scale[J]. J Adv Nurs, 2016, 72(4):946-957. doi: 10.1111/jan.12875 pmid: 26689434
[24]	Li XC, Wu BL, Cheng XH, et al. Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns:The implant restoration esthetic index and patient perception[J]. J Prosthodont, 2019, 28(1):e51-e58. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12659
[25]	Hamdane K, Nasri W. Esthetic evaluation of single implant-supported prostheses:Comparative analysis of the reliability of the esthetic indices[J]. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2022, 34(4):680-688. doi: 10.1111/jerd.v34.4
[26]	Özhayat EB, Dannemand K. Validation of the prosthetic esthetic index[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2014, 18(5):1447-1456. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-1109-x
[27]	Øzhayat EB. Responsiveness of the prosthetic esthetic scale[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2017, 21(3):907-913. doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-1841-0
[28]	Rotundo R, Nieri M, Bonaccini D, et al. The Smile Esthetic Index(SEI):A method to measure the esthetics of the smile. An intra-rater and inter-rater agreement study[J]. Eur J Oral Implantol, 2015, 8(4):397-403.
[29]	Frese C, Leciejewski F, Specht R, et al. The dental esthetic screening index:A new tool for assessment of dento-facial esthetics in restorative dentistry[J]. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2019, 31(6):572-582. doi: 10.1111/jerd.v31.6
[30]	Reissmann DR. Dental patient-reported outcome measures are essential for evidence-based prosthetic dentistry[J]. J Evid Based Dent Pract, 2019, 19(1):1-6. doi: S1532-3382(18)30393-2 pmid: 30926098
[31]	Pollini A, Morton D, Arunyanak SP, et al. Evaluation of esthetic parameters related to a single implant restoration by laypeople and dentists[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2020, 124(1):94-99. doi: S0022-3913(19)30547-5 pmid: 31753457
[32]	Altay MA, Sindel A, Tezeriᶊfener HA, et al. Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns:A comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes[J]. Int J Implant Dent, 2019, 5(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s40729-018-0153-3
[33]	Duong HY, Roccuzzo A, Stähli A, et al. Oral health-related quality of life of patients rehabilitated with fixed and removable implant-supported dental prostheses[J]. Periodontol 2000, 2022, 88(1):201-237. doi: 10.1111/prd.v88.1
[34]	Lajnert V, Kovacevic Pavicic D, Pavlic A, et al. Smile Aesthetics Satisfaction Scale:Development and validation of a new brief five-item measure of satisfaction with smile aesthetics in adults and the elderly[J]. Int Dent J, 2018, 68(3):162-170. doi: 10.1111/idj.12362 pmid: 29417573
[35]	Dourado GB, Volpato GH, de Almeida-Pedrin RR, et al. Likert scale vs visual analog scale for assessing facial pleasantness[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop, 2021, 160(6):844-852. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.05.024
[36]	Giannini SPP, Latorre M, Ferreira LP. Condition of Vocal Production-Teacher questionnaire:Comparison of responses on Likert scale and visual analog scale[J]. CoDAS, 2016, 28(1):53-58. doi: 10.1590/2317-1782/20162015030
[37]	Sterenborg BAMM, Bronkhorst EM, Wetselaar P, et al. The influence of management of tooth wear on oral health-related quality of life[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2018, 22(7):2567-2573. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2355-8
[38]	Schierz O, Reissmann DR. Dental patient-reported outcomes:The promise of dental implants[J]. J Evid Based Dent Pract, 2021, 21(1):101541. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2021.101541
[39]	John MT. Foundations of oral health-related quality of life[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2020.doi:10.1111/joor.13040. doi: 10.1111/joor.13040
[40]	Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the oral health impact profile[J]. Community Dent Health, 1994, 11(1):3-11.
[41]	Simancas-Pallares M, John MT, Enstad C, et al. The Spanish language 5-item oral health impact profile[J]. Int Dent J, 2020, 70(2):127-135. doi: 10.1111/idj.12534 pmid: 31750546
[42]	Pattanaik S, Lee CH, John MT, et al. Is assessment of oral health-related quality of life burdensome?An item nonresponse analysis of the oral health impact profile[J]. BMC Oral Heal, 2021, 21:605.
[43]	刘佳钰, 陈卓凡. 中文版口腔健康影响程度量表(OHIP-49)的研制[J]. 临床口腔医学杂志, 2011, 27(8):469-472.
[44]	Wong AHH, Cheung CS, McGrath C. Developing a short form of Oral Health Impact Profile(OHIP)for dental aesthetics:OHIP-aesthetic[J]. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 2007, 35(1):64-72. doi: 10.1111/com.2007.35.issue-1
[45]	Larsson P, John MT, Nilner K, et al. Reliability and validity of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale in prosthodontic patients[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2010, 23(3):257-262. pmid: 20552093
[46]	Reissmann DR, John MT, Enstad CJ, et al. Measuring patients' orofacial appearance:Validity and reliability of the English-language orofacial esthetic scale[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 2019, 150(4):278-286. doi: S0002-8177(18)30886-9 pmid: 30922458
[47]	Simancas-Pallares M, John MT, Prodduturu S, et al. Development, validity and reliability of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale-Spanish version[J]. J Prosthodont Res, 2018, 62(4):456-461. doi: S1883-1958(18)30085-9 pmid: 29866446
[48]	Zhao Y, He SL. Development of the Chinese version of the oro-facial esthetic scale[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2013, 40(9):670-677. doi: 10.1111/joor.12077 pmid: 23829233
[49]	Alhajj MN, Amran AG, Halboub E, et al. Development, validation and psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale:OES-Ar[J]. J Prosthodont Res, 2017, 61(3):290-296. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2016.10.004
[50]	Bela Andela S, Lamprecht R, John MT, et al. Development of a one-item version of the orofacial esthetic scale[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2022, 26(1):713-718. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04049-6

评价量表		PES	PES/WES	mod-ICAI	PICI	IREI
评价指标	粉色美学	近中龈乳头远中龈乳头软组织水平软组织颜色软组织质地软组织轮廓牙槽骨缺损	近中龈乳头远中龈乳头龈缘水平软组织轮廓根面凸度和颜色质地	龈缘水平龈乳头高度龈缘轮廓牙龈颜色与纹理质地	龈乳头牙龈顶点根面凸度	近中龈乳头远中龈乳头龈缘顶点水平龈缘轮廓软组织颜色与质地牙槽骨缺损
	白色美学		牙冠颜色牙冠形态牙冠轮廓表面纹理半透明度/个性化特征	牙冠近远中径牙冠切端位置牙冠唇面凸度牙冠颜色/半透明度牙冠表面纹理质地	牙冠形态牙冠颜色个性化特征	牙冠轮廓牙冠位置牙冠唇面凸度个性化特征牙冠颜色/半透明度基台可见性
	主观总体评价				冠修复体软组织整体评分
评价细则	参照牙	同名对照牙	同名对照牙	同名对照牙	同名对照牙	同名对照牙/邻牙
	评价标准	2(差异无统计学意义) 1(小的差异) 0(大的差异)	2(差异无统计学意义) 1(小的差异) 0(大的差异)	0(差异无统计学意义) 1(小的差异) 2(大的差异)	VAS	VAS
	总分	0~14	0~20	0~18	0~600	粉色美学0~600 白色美学0~600
	临床可接受阈值	≥8	≥12		≥360	粉色美学≥400 白色美学≥400

评价量表		PEI	SEI	DESI
评价指标	面部评价	面部对称性	面中线对称性笑线和谐性	上中切牙长轴角度与面中线关系前牙暴露量下唇与上颌切牙牙弓的平行度
评价指标	口内评价	牙弓对称性牙齿缺失牙体形状牙体颜色牙体位置牙弓连续性固定修复体边缘可摘义齿金属部分牙染色牙龈颜色牙龈退缩牙磨损程度	牙冠位置牙体形态牙体颜色牙龈颜色牙龈退缩牙龈增生牙龈瘢痕牙间隙/龈乳头缺失	牙龈轮廓位置龈乳头位置牙弓连续性前牙轴向位置邻接位置牙体颜色中切牙比例
评价细则	评价标准	0(不存在) 1(最佳) 5(最差)	1(良好/不可见) 0(差/可见)	1(最佳) 5(最差)
评价细则	总分	10~65	0~10	面部总分3~15 口内总分7~35 总分10~50