PURPOSE: Pretreatment diagnosis of mandibular asymmetry in orthognathic surgery patients can be improved by quantitative shape modeling and analysis. The UNC SPHARM-PDM (University of North Carolina Spherical Harmonics-Point Distribution Model) toolbox was applied to a cohort of patients and the results were evaluated. METHODS: Three-dimensional (3D) virtual surface models are constructed from CBCT scans of each patient in the cohort by segmentation. Mirroring on a sagittal arbitrary plane is used to flip the left and right sides of each image. An automatic voxel-based registration on the cranial base is used to align the volume and its mirror for comparison. SPHARM-PDM is used to compute correspondent models for each hemimandible and the mirror of the contralateral side. Procrustes analysis was used to evaluate discrepancies between each pair of models to assess asymmetry. Mandibular asymmetry was also located and quantified by computing corresponding surface distances between each hemimandible (left and right sides) and the mirror of the contralateral side. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in surrogates for mandibular asymmetry assessment based on right or the left side mirroring. Those surrogates are the rotational and translational differences between each hemimandible and the mirror of the contralateral side in 3 planes of space (the absolute values of Procrustes registration output in 6 degrees of freedom). Absolute and signed distance maps between each hemimandible and the mirror of the contralateral side located and quantified areas of asymmetry diagnosis for each patient. Even though mandibular condyle asymmetry was observed in 8% of the cases and mandibular asymmetry along areas of the ramus and mandibular corpus was noted in 17.8% of the cases, the remaining 74.2% showed generalized morphological and positional asymmetry at the condyle, the ramus and mandibular corpus. CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional diagnosis of mandibular asymmetry revealed the complex involvement of morphological components of the mandible and the heterogeneous nature of this clinical condition. SPHARM-PDM has a promising role in the individual diagnosis and quantification of mandibular asymmetry.
PURPOSE: Pretreatment diagnosis of mandibular asymmetry in orthognathic surgery patients can be improved by quantitative shape modeling and analysis. The UNC SPHARM-PDM (University of North Carolina Spherical Harmonics-Point Distribution Model) toolbox was applied to a cohort of patients and the results were evaluated. METHODS: Three-dimensional (3D) virtual surface models are constructed from CBCT scans of each patient in the cohort by segmentation. Mirroring on a sagittal arbitrary plane is used to flip the left and right sides of each image. An automatic voxel-based registration on the cranial base is used to align the volume and its mirror for comparison. SPHARM-PDM is used to compute correspondent models for each hemimandible and the mirror of the contralateral side. Procrustes analysis was used to evaluate discrepancies between each pair of models to assess asymmetry. Mandibular asymmetry was also located and quantified by computing corresponding surface distances between each hemimandible (left and right sides) and the mirror of the contralateral side. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in surrogates for mandibular asymmetry assessment based on right or the left side mirroring. Those surrogates are the rotational and translational differences between each hemimandible and the mirror of the contralateral side in 3 planes of space (the absolute values of Procrustes registration output in 6 degrees of freedom). Absolute and signed distance maps between each hemimandible and the mirror of the contralateral side located and quantified areas of asymmetry diagnosis for each patient. Even though mandibular condyle asymmetry was observed in 8% of the cases and mandibular asymmetry along areas of the ramus and mandibular corpus was noted in 17.8% of the cases, the remaining 74.2% showed generalized morphological and positional asymmetry at the condyle, the ramus and mandibular corpus. CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional diagnosis of mandibular asymmetry revealed the complex involvement of morphological components of the mandible and the heterogeneous nature of this clinical condition. SPHARM-PDM has a promising role in the individual diagnosis and quantification of mandibular asymmetry.
Authors: Lucia H S Cevidanes; Abeer Alhadidi; Beatriz Paniagua; Martin Styner; John Ludlow; Andre Mol; Timothy Turvey; William R Proffit; Paul Emile Rossouw Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2011-04-16
Authors: Paul A Yushkevich; Joseph Piven; Heather Cody Hazlett; Rachel Gimpel Smith; Sean Ho; James C Gee; Guido Gerig Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: E De Momi; J Chapuis; I Pappas; G Ferrigno; W Hallermann; A Schramm; M Caversaccio Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 2.789
Authors: Jaime Gateno; James J Xia; John F Teichgraeber; Andrew M Christensen; Jeremy J Lemoine; Michael A K Liebschner; Michael J Gliddon; Michaelanne E Briggs Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: R Christian Solem; Antonio Ruellas; Joni L Ricks-Oddie; Katherine Kelly; Snehlata Oberoi; Janice Lee; Arthur Miller; Lucia Cevidanes Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Motoki Katsube; Sara M Rolfe; Stephanie R Bortolussi; Yutaka Yamaguchi; Joy M Richman; Shigehito Yamada; Siddharth R Vora Journal: Orthod Craniofac Res Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Jie Shi; Cynthia M Stonnington; Paul M Thompson; Kewei Chen; Boris Gutman; Cole Reschke; Leslie C Baxter; Eric M Reiman; Richard J Caselli; Yalin Wang Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2014-10-05 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Derek A Sanders; Taranpreet K Chandhoke; Flavio A Uribe; Paul H Rigali; Ravindra Nanda Journal: Prog Orthod Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 2.750