Furkan Dindaroğlu1, Pınar Kutlu2, Gökhan Serhat Duran2, Serkan Görgülü3, Erhan Aslan4. 1. a Research Assistant, Gülhane Military Medical Academy, Dental Sciences Center, Department of Orthodontics, Ankara, Turkey. 2. b PhD student, Gülhane Military Medical Academy, Dental Sciences Center, Department of Orthodontics, Ankara, Turkey. 3. c Associate Professor, Gülhane Military Medical Academy, Dental Sciences Center, Department of Orthodontics, Ankara, Turkey. 4. d Biomedical Engineer, Gülhane Military Medical Academy, Medical Design and Manufacturing Center, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetry by comparing it with the direct anthropometry and digital photogrammetry methods. The reliability of 3D stereophotogrammetry was also examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six profile and four frontal parameters were directly measured on the faces of 80 participants. The same measurements were repeated using two-dimensional (2D) photogrammetry and 3D stereophotogrammetry (3dMDflex System, 3dMD, Atlanta, Ga) to obtain images of the subjects. Another observer made the same measurements for images obtained with 3D stereophotogrammetry, and interobserver reproducibility was evaluated for 3D images. Both observers remeasured the 3D images 1 month later, and intraobserver reproducibility was evaluated. Statistical analysis was conducted using the paired samples t-test, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman limits of agreement. RESULTS: The highest mean difference was 0.30 mm between direct measurement and photogrammetry, 0.21 mm between direct measurement and 3D stereophotogrammetry, and 0.5 mm between photogrammetry and 3D stereophotogrammetry. The lowest agreement value was 0.965 in the Sn-Pro parameter between the photogrammetry and 3D stereophotogrammetry methods. Agreement between the two observers varied from 0.90 (Ch-Ch) to 0.99 (Sn-Me) in linear measurements. For intraobserver agreement, the highest difference between means was 0.33 for observer 1 and 1.42 mm for observer 2. CONCLUSIONS: Measurements obtained using 3D stereophotogrammetry indicate that it may be an accurate and reliable imaging method for use in orthodontics.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetry by comparing it with the direct anthropometry and digital photogrammetry methods. The reliability of 3D stereophotogrammetry was also examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six profile and four frontal parameters were directly measured on the faces of 80 participants. The same measurements were repeated using two-dimensional (2D) photogrammetry and 3D stereophotogrammetry (3dMDflex System, 3dMD, Atlanta, Ga) to obtain images of the subjects. Another observer made the same measurements for images obtained with 3D stereophotogrammetry, and interobserver reproducibility was evaluated for 3D images. Both observers remeasured the 3D images 1 month later, and intraobserver reproducibility was evaluated. Statistical analysis was conducted using the paired samples t-test, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman limits of agreement. RESULTS: The highest mean difference was 0.30 mm between direct measurement and photogrammetry, 0.21 mm between direct measurement and 3D stereophotogrammetry, and 0.5 mm between photogrammetry and 3D stereophotogrammetry. The lowest agreement value was 0.965 in the Sn-Pro parameter between the photogrammetry and 3D stereophotogrammetry methods. Agreement between the two observers varied from 0.90 (Ch-Ch) to 0.99 (Sn-Me) in linear measurements. For intraobserver agreement, the highest difference between means was 0.33 for observer 1 and 1.42 mm for observer 2. CONCLUSIONS: Measurements obtained using 3D stereophotogrammetry indicate that it may be an accurate and reliable imaging method for use in orthodontics.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D stereophotogrammetry; Direct anthropometry; Photogrammetry
Authors: Oguzhan Topsakal; Mustafa İlhan Akbaş; Bria Synae Smith; Michael Francis Perez; Ege Can Guden; Mehmet Mazhar Celikoyar Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2021-06-19 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Xiaoyi Hou; Alexander C Rokohl; Marius M Meinke; Senmao Li; Jinhua Liu; Wanlin Fan; Ming Lin; Renbing Jia; Yongwei Guo; Ludwig M Heindl Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-08