INTRODUCTION: Orthodontists rely heavily on soft-tissue analysis to determine facial esthetics and treatment stability. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the equivalence of soft-tissue measurements between the 3dMD imaging system (3dMD, Atlanta, Ga) and the segmented skin surface images derived from cone-beam computed tomography. METHODS: Seventy preexisting 3dMD facial photographs and cone-beam computed tomography scans taken within minutes of each other for the same subjects were registered in 3 dimensions and superimposed using Vultus (3dMD) software. After reliability studies, 28 soft-tissue measurements were recorded with both imaging modalities and compared to analyze their equivalence. Intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess interexaminer and intraexaminer repeatability and agreement. Summary statistics were calculated for all measurements. To demonstrate equivalence of the 2 methods, the difference needed a 95% confidence interval contained entirely within the equivalence limits defined by the repeatability results. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were reported for the vermilion height, mouth width, total facial width, mouth symmetry, soft-tissue lip thickness, and eye symmetry. CONCLUSIONS: There are areas of nonequivalence between the 2 imaging methods; however, the differences are clinically acceptable from the orthodontic point of view.
INTRODUCTION: Orthodontists rely heavily on soft-tissue analysis to determine facial esthetics and treatment stability. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the equivalence of soft-tissue measurements between the 3dMD imaging system (3dMD, Atlanta, Ga) and the segmented skin surface images derived from cone-beam computed tomography. METHODS: Seventy preexisting 3dMD facial photographs and cone-beam computed tomography scans taken within minutes of each other for the same subjects were registered in 3 dimensions and superimposed using Vultus (3dMD) software. After reliability studies, 28 soft-tissue measurements were recorded with both imaging modalities and compared to analyze their equivalence. Intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess interexaminer and intraexaminer repeatability and agreement. Summary statistics were calculated for all measurements. To demonstrate equivalence of the 2 methods, the difference needed a 95% confidence interval contained entirely within the equivalence limits defined by the repeatability results. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were reported for the vermilion height, mouth width, total facial width, mouth symmetry, soft-tissue lip thickness, and eye symmetry. CONCLUSIONS: There are areas of nonequivalence between the 2 imaging methods; however, the differences are clinically acceptable from the orthodontic point of view.
Authors: Ali Modabber; Florian Peters; Anna Brokmeier; Evgeny Goloborodko; Alireza Ghassemi; Bernd Lethaus; Frank Hölzle; Stephan Christian Möhlhenrich Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Res Date: 2016-12-28
Authors: Giuditta Battistoni; Diana Cassi; Marisabel Magnifico; Giuseppe Pedrazzi; Marco Di Blasio; Benedetta Vaienti; Alberto Di Blasio Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Zhenqi Zhao; Lizhe Xie; Dan Cao; Iman Izadikhah; Pengcheng Gao; Yang Zhao; Bin Yan Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 2.419