Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas1, Luis T Huanca Ghislanzoni2, Marcelo Regis Gomes3, Carlotta Danesi4, Roberta Lione5, Tung Nguyen6, James A McNamara7, Paola Cozza8, Lorenzo Franchi9, Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes10. 1. Associate professor, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Brazilian National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) researcher and postdoctoral fellow, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. Electronic address: antonioruellas@yahoo.com.br. 2. Research fellow, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 3. Postgraduate student, Department of Prosthetics, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. 4. Postgraduate student, Department of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 5. PhD fellow, Department of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata," Rome, Italy. 6. Assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 7. Thomas M. and Doris Graber Endowed Professor Emeritus, Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 8. Professor and department chair, Department of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata," Rome, Italy. 9. Research associate, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; Thomas M. Graber Visiting Scholar, Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 10. Assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to evaluate the differences between 2 regions of maxillary voxel-based registration and to test the reproducibility of the registration. METHODS: Three-dimensional models were built for before-treatment (T1) and after-treatment (T2) based on cone-beam computed tomography images from 16 growing subjects. Landmarks were labeled in all T2 models of the maxilla, and voxel-based registrations were performed independently by 2 observers at 2 times using 2 reference regions. The first region, the maxillary region, included the maxillary bone clipped inferiorly at the dentoalveolar processes, superiorly at the plane passing through the right and left orbitale points, laterally at the zygomatic processes through the orbitale point, and posteriorly at a plane passing through the distal surface of the second molars. In the second region, the palate and infrazygomatic region had different posterior and anterior limits (at the plane passing through the distal aspects of the first molars and the canines, respectively). The differences between the registration regions were measured by comparing the distances between corresponding landmarks in the T2 registered models and comparing the corresponding x, y, and z coordinates from corresponding landmarks. Statistical analysis of the differences between the T2 surface models was performed by evaluating the means and standard deviations of the distances between landmarks and by testing the agreement between coordinates from corresponding landmarks (intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman method). RESULTS: The means of the differences between landmarks from the palate and infrazygomatic region to the maxillary region 3-dimensional surface models at T2 for all regions of reference, times of registrations, and observer combinations were smaller than 0.5 mm. The intraclass correlation coefficient and the Bland-Altman plots indicated adequate concordance. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 regions of regional maxillary registration showed similar results and adequate intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility values.
INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to evaluate the differences between 2 regions of maxillary voxel-based registration and to test the reproducibility of the registration. METHODS: Three-dimensional models were built for before-treatment (T1) and after-treatment (T2) based on cone-beam computed tomography images from 16 growing subjects. Landmarks were labeled in all T2 models of the maxilla, and voxel-based registrations were performed independently by 2 observers at 2 times using 2 reference regions. The first region, the maxillary region, included the maxillary bone clipped inferiorly at the dentoalveolar processes, superiorly at the plane passing through the right and left orbitale points, laterally at the zygomatic processes through the orbitale point, and posteriorly at a plane passing through the distal surface of the second molars. In the second region, the palate and infrazygomatic region had different posterior and anterior limits (at the plane passing through the distal aspects of the first molars and the canines, respectively). The differences between the registration regions were measured by comparing the distances between corresponding landmarks in the T2 registered models and comparing the corresponding x, y, and z coordinates from corresponding landmarks. Statistical analysis of the differences between the T2 surface models was performed by evaluating the means and standard deviations of the distances between landmarks and by testing the agreement between coordinates from corresponding landmarks (intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman method). RESULTS: The means of the differences between landmarks from the palate and infrazygomatic region to the maxillary region 3-dimensional surface models at T2 for all regions of reference, times of registrations, and observer combinations were smaller than 0.5 mm. The intraclass correlation coefficient and the Bland-Altman plots indicated adequate concordance. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 regions of regional maxillary registration showed similar results and adequate intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility values.
Authors: Lucia H C Cevidanes; Alexandre Motta; William R Proffit; James L Ackerman; Martin Styner Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Lucia H C Cevidanes; Gavin Heymann; Marie A Cornelis; Hugo J DeClerck; J F Camilla Tulloch Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Danielle R Periago; William C Scarfe; Mazyar Moshiri; James P Scheetz; Anibal M Silveira; Allan G Farman Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Rania M Nada; Thomas J J Maal; K Hero Breuning; Stefaan J Bergé; Yehya A Mostafa; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: F Angelieri; A C Ruellas; M S Yatabe; L H S Cevidanes; L Franchi; C Toyama-Hino; H J De Clerck; T Nguyen; J A McNamara Journal: Orthod Craniofac Res Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Ulas Oz; Antonio Carlos Ruellas; Philip M Westgate; Lucia H Cevidanes; Sarandeep S Huja Journal: Orthod Craniofac Res Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Kyle L Taylor; Karine Evangelista; Luciana Muniz; Antônio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas; José Valladares-Neto; James McNamara; Lorenzo Franchi; Hera Kim-Berman; Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes Journal: Orthod Craniofac Res Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 1.826