Literature DB >> 15127020

A comparison of current prediction imaging programs.

J Dempsey Smith1, Paul M Thomas, William R Proffit.   

Abstract

To investigate perceived differences in the ability of current software to simulate the actual outcome of orthognathic surgery, we chose 10 difficult test cases with vertical discrepancies and "retreated" them using the actual surgical changes. Five programs--Dentofacial Planner Plus, Dolphin Imaging, Orthoplan, Quick Ceph Image, and Vistadent--were evaluated, by using both the default result and a refined result created with each program's enhancement tools. Three panels (orthodontists, oral-maxillofacial surgeons, and laypersons) judged the default images and the retouched simulations by ranking the simulations in side-by-side comparisons and by rating each simulation relative to the actual outcome on a 6-point scale. For the default and retouched images, Dentofacial Planner Plus was judged the best default simulation 79% and 59% of the time, respectively, and its default images received the best (lowest) mean score (2.46) on the 6-point scale. It also scored best (2.26) when the retouched images were compared, but the scores for Dolphin Imaging (2.83) and Quick Ceph (3.03) improved. Retouching had little impact on the scores for the other programs. Although the results show differences in simulation ability, selecting a software package depends on many factors. Performance and ease of use, cost, compatibility, and other features such as image and practice management tools are all important considerations. Users concerned with operating system compatibility and practice management integration might want to consider Dolphin Imaging and Quick Ceph, the programs comprising the second tier.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15127020      PMCID: PMC3740727          DOI: 10.1016/S0889540604001210

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  13 in total

1.  Prediction of soft tissue profiles in orthodontic surgery with the Dentofacial Planner.

Authors:  G R Csaszar; B Brüker-Csaszar; H Niederdellmann
Journal:  Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg       Date:  1999

2.  Accuracy of a computerized method of predicting soft-tissue changes from orthognathic surgery.

Authors:  T J Curtis; J S Casko; J R Jakobsen; T E Southard
Journal:  J Clin Orthod       Date:  2000-09

3.  The reliability of computerized cephalometric soft tissue prediction following bimaxillary anterior subapical osteotomy.

Authors:  K K Lew
Journal:  Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg       Date:  1992

4.  Accuracy of cephalometric and video imaging program Dentofacial Planner Plus in orthognathic surgical planning.

Authors:  G Schultes; A Gaggl; H Kärcher
Journal:  Comput Aided Surg       Date:  1998

5.  Surgical prediction reliability: a comparison of two computer software systems.

Authors:  P A Aharon; S Eisig; G J Cisneros
Journal:  Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg       Date:  1997

6.  Evaluation of video imaging prediction in combined maxillary and mandibular orthognathic surgery.

Authors:  P M Upton; P L Sadowsky; D M Sarver; T J Heaven
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 2.650

7.  The accuracy of video imaging in orthognathic surgery.

Authors:  P M Sinclair; P Kilpelainen; C Phillips; R P White; L Rogers; D M Sarver
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 2.650

8.  The validity of the prediction of Soft Tissue profile changes after LeFort I osteotomy using the dentofacial planner (computer software).

Authors:  K A Konstiantos; M T O'Reilly; J Close
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 2.650

9.  The accuracy of computerized prediction of the soft tissue profile: a study of 25 patients treated by means of the Le Fort I osteotomy.

Authors:  E A Eales; C Newton; M L Jones; A Sugar
Journal:  Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg       Date:  1994

10.  The predictability of maxillary repositioning in LeFort I orthognathic surgery.

Authors:  Ron Jacobson; David M Sarver
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.650

View more
  11 in total

1.  Comparison of actual surgical outcomes and 3-dimensional surgical simulations.

Authors:  Scott Tucker; Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes; Martin Styner; Hyungmin Kim; Mauricio Reyes; William Proffit; Timothy Turvey
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2010-06-29       Impact factor: 1.895

2.  Achieving the prediction results by visualized treatment objective following anterior maxillary segmental osteotomy. A retrospective study.

Authors:  V Venkatesh; K A Jeevan Kumar; A P Mohan; B Pavan Kumar; Ramesh Kunusoth; M Pavan Kumar
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2012-09-23

3.  A clinically validated prediction method for facial soft-tissue changes following double-jaw surgery.

Authors:  Daeseung Kim; Dennis Chun-Yu Ho; Huaming Mai; Xiaoyan Zhang; Steve G F Shen; Shunyao Shen; Peng Yuan; Siting Liu; Guangming Zhang; Xiaobo Zhou; Jaime Gateno; Michael A K Liebschner; James J Xia
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Combined Orthodontic and Surgical Approach in the Correction of a Class III Skeletal Malocclusion with Mandibular Prognathism and Vertical Maxillary Excess Using Bimaxillary Osteotomy.

Authors:  George Jose Cherackal; Eapen Thomas; Akhilesh Prathap
Journal:  Case Rep Dent       Date:  2013-12-22

5.  Quantitative validation of a computer-aided maxillofacial planning system, focusing on soft tissue deformations.

Authors:  Nasser Nadjmi; Ellen Defrancq; Wouter Mollemans; Geert Van Hemelen; Stefaan Bergé
Journal:  Ann Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2014 Jul-Dec

6.  Prediction of lip response to orthodontic treatment using a multivariable regression model.

Authors:  Amin Shirvani; Saeid Sadeghian; Safieh Abbasi
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb

7.  Open bite in adult patients.

Authors:  Carlos Alberto Estevanell Tavares; Susiane Allgayer
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2019-11-11

8.  Evaluation of the soft tissue treatment simulation module of a computerized cephalometric program.

Authors:  Aslihan Zeynep Oz; Cenk Ahmet Akcan; Hakan El; Semra Ciger
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2014-04

9.  Accuracy of Dolphin visual treatment objective (VTO) prediction software on class III patients treated with maxillary advancement and mandibular setback.

Authors:  Robert J Peterman; Shuying Jiang; Rene Johe; Padma M Mukherjee
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 2.750

10.  Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Analysis: The Changes in Condylar Position Pre- and Post-Orthognathic Surgery With Skeletal Class III Malocclusion.

Authors:  Abhinav Shrestha; Shao Hua Song; Han Nyein Aung; Jirayus Sangwatanakul; Nuo Zhou
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2021 Mar-Apr 01       Impact factor: 1.172

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.