Orthodontic soft-tissue parameters: A comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and the 3dMD imaging system
Orthodontic soft-tissue parameters: A comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and the 3dMD imaging system
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.07.007
复制
发表时间：
2013-11-01
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Ghoneima, Ahmed A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Metzger, Tasha E.;Kula, Katherine S.;Ghoneima, Ahmed A.
简介：正畸医生严重依赖软组织分析来确定面部美观和治疗稳定性。这项回顾性研究的目的是确定 3dMD 成像系统（3dMD，佐治亚州亚特兰大）和锥束计算机断层扫描得出的分段皮肤表面图像之间软组织测量的等效性。方法：对同一受试者在几分钟内拍摄的 70 张预先存在的 3dMD 面部照片和锥形束计算机断层扫描进行 3 维注册，并使用 Vultus (3dMD) 软件进行叠加。经过可靠性研究后，使用两种成像方式记录了 28 项软组织测量结果，并进行比较以分析其等效性。组内相关系数和 Bland-Altman 图用于评估检查者间和检查者内部的重复性和一致性。计算所有测量的汇总统计数据。为了证明两种方法的等效性，差异需要 95% 的置信区间完全包含在由重复性结果定义的等效限度内。结果：朱红高度、嘴宽、面部总宽度、嘴对称性、唇软组织厚度和眼睛对称性存在统计学显着差异。结论：两种成像方法之间存在不等同之处；然而，从正畸的角度来看，这些差异在临床上是可以接受的。
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.