PURPOSE: This present study used the conventional visualized treatment objectives (VTOs) as a tool to evaluate the predictive value of the Dolphin computer-assisted VTOs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Presurgical cephalometric tracing predictions generated by oral and maxillofacial surgeons and the Dolphin Imaging software were compared with the postsurgical outcome as seen on lateral cephalometric tracings. Sixteen measurements of the predicted and actual postsurgical hard tissue landmarks were compared statistically. RESULTS: A paired Student's t test showed that 7 measurements had statistically significant differences for the conventional VTOs (facial angle, P < .0001; AOC, P < .0001; SNB, P = .003; ANB, P = .004; U1-NA-degrees, P = .01; U1-NA-mm, P = .02; and N perp Pog, P < .0001), while 9 measurements were statistically significant ( P = <.0001) for Dolphin (facial angle, P = .0001; AOC, P = .005; SNB, P = .001; ANB, I = .04; U1-NA-degrees, P = .003; PogNB, P = .04; U1-NA-mm, P = .002; N perp Pog, P = .0001; UFH, P = .03; and LFH, P = .03). CONCLUSION: From these data, it appears that both VTOs demonstrated good predictive comparative outcome and are equally precise.
PURPOSE: This present study used the conventional visualized treatment objectives (VTOs) as a tool to evaluate the predictive value of the Dolphin computer-assisted VTOs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Presurgical cephalometric tracing predictions generated by oral and maxillofacial surgeons and the Dolphin Imaging software were compared with the postsurgical outcome as seen on lateral cephalometric tracings. Sixteen measurements of the predicted and actual postsurgical hard tissue landmarks were compared statistically. RESULTS: A paired Student's t test showed that 7 measurements had statistically significant differences for the conventional VTOs (facial angle, P < .0001; AOC, P < .0001; SNB, P = .003; ANB, P = .004; U1-NA-degrees, P = .01; U1-NA-mm, P = .02; and N perp Pog, P < .0001), while 9 measurements were statistically significant ( P = <.0001) for Dolphin (facial angle, P = .0001; AOC, P = .005; SNB, P = .001; ANB, I = .04; U1-NA-degrees, P = .003; PogNB, P = .04; U1-NA-mm, P = .002; N perp Pog, P = .0001; UFH, P = .03; and LFH, P = .03). CONCLUSION: From these data, it appears that both VTOs demonstrated good predictive comparative outcome and are equally precise.