Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Rating nasolabial appearance on three-dimensional images in cleft lip and palate: a comparison with standard photographs

A. Stebel, D. Desmedt, E. Bronkhorst, MA. Kuijpers, PS. Fudalej,

. 2016 ; 38 (2) : 197-201. [pub] 20150421

Language English Country England, Great Britain

Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Judgement of nasolabial aesthetics in cleft lip and palate (CLP) is a vital component of assessment of treatment outcome. It is usually performed based on two-dimensional (2D) facial photographs. An increasing use of three-dimensional (3D) imaging warrants an assessment if 3D images can substitute 2D photographs during aesthetic evaluation. The aim of this study was to compare reliability of rating nasolabial appearance on 3D images and standard 2D photographs in prepubertal children. METHODS: Forty subjects (age: 8.8-12) with unilateral CLP treated according to a standardized protocol, who had 2D and 3D facial images were selected. Eight lay raters assessed nasal form, nasal deviation, vermilion border, and nasolabial profile on cropped 2D and 3D images using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Additionally, raters answer two questions: 1. Do 2D or 3D images provide more information on nasolabial aesthetics? and 2. Is aesthetic evaluation easier on 2D or 3D images? RESULTS: Intrarater agreement demonstrated a better reliability of ratings performed on 3D images than 2D images (correlation coefficients for 3D images ranged from 0.733 to 0.857; for 2D images from 0.151 to 0.611). The mean scores showed, however, no difference between 2D and 3D formats (>0.05). 3D images were regarded more informative than 2D images (P = 0.001) but probably more difficult to evaluate (P = 0.06). LIMITATIONS: Basal view of the nose was not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: 3D images seem better than 2D images for rating nasolabial aesthetics but raters should familiarize themselves with them prior to rating.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc17001163
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20170116105759.0
007      
ta
008      
170103s2016 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1093/ejo/cjv024 $2 doi
024    7_
$a 10.1093/ejo/cjv024 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)25900054
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Stebel, Adam $u Division of Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Stomatology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia, Departments of.
245    10
$a Rating nasolabial appearance on three-dimensional images in cleft lip and palate: a comparison with standard photographs / $c A. Stebel, D. Desmedt, E. Bronkhorst, MA. Kuijpers, PS. Fudalej,
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Judgement of nasolabial aesthetics in cleft lip and palate (CLP) is a vital component of assessment of treatment outcome. It is usually performed based on two-dimensional (2D) facial photographs. An increasing use of three-dimensional (3D) imaging warrants an assessment if 3D images can substitute 2D photographs during aesthetic evaluation. The aim of this study was to compare reliability of rating nasolabial appearance on 3D images and standard 2D photographs in prepubertal children. METHODS: Forty subjects (age: 8.8-12) with unilateral CLP treated according to a standardized protocol, who had 2D and 3D facial images were selected. Eight lay raters assessed nasal form, nasal deviation, vermilion border, and nasolabial profile on cropped 2D and 3D images using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Additionally, raters answer two questions: 1. Do 2D or 3D images provide more information on nasolabial aesthetics? and 2. Is aesthetic evaluation easier on 2D or 3D images? RESULTS: Intrarater agreement demonstrated a better reliability of ratings performed on 3D images than 2D images (correlation coefficients for 3D images ranged from 0.733 to 0.857; for 2D images from 0.151 to 0.611). The mean scores showed, however, no difference between 2D and 3D formats (>0.05). 3D images were regarded more informative than 2D images (P = 0.001) but probably more difficult to evaluate (P = 0.06). LIMITATIONS: Basal view of the nose was not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: 3D images seem better than 2D images for rating nasolabial aesthetics but raters should familiarize themselves with them prior to rating.
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a dítě $7 D002648
650    _2
$a rozštěp rtu $x patologie $x chirurgie $7 D002971
650    _2
$a rozštěp patra $x patologie $x chirurgie $7 D002972
650    _2
$a estetika $7 D004954
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a počítačové zpracování obrazu $x metody $7 D007091
650    _2
$a zobrazování trojrozměrné $x metody $7 D021621
650    _2
$a ret $x anatomie a histologie $7 D008046
650    _2
$a nos $x anatomie a histologie $7 D009666
650    _2
$a získané deformity nosu $x patologie $7 D009667
650    _2
$a fotogrammetrie $x metody $7 D010780
650    _2
$a fotografování $x metody $7 D010781
650    _2
$a zákroky plastické chirurgie $x metody $7 D019651
650    _2
$a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a vizuální analogová stupnice $7 D064232
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Desmedt, Dries $u Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology.
700    1_
$a Bronkhorst, Ewald $u Community and Restorative Dentistry, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
700    1_
$a Kuijpers, Mette A $u Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology.
700    1_
$a Fudalej, Piotr S $u Department of Orthodontics, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic, and *****Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Piotr.Fudalej@zmk.unibe.ch.
773    0_
$w MED00001634 $t European journal of orthodontics $x 1460-2210 $g Roč. 38, č. 2 (2016), s. 197-201
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25900054 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20170103 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20170116105903 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1180303 $s 961730
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2016 $b 38 $c 2 $d 197-201 $e 20150421 $i 1460-2210 $m European journal of orthodontics $n Eur J Orthod $x MED00001634
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20170103

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...