-
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,
Language English Country England, Great Britain
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article
NLK
Free Medical Journals
from 1996 to 1 year ago
Open Access Digital Library
from 1996-01-01
PubMed
25900054
DOI
10.1093/ejo/cjv024
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Child MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Esthetics MeSH
- Photography methods MeSH
- Photogrammetry methods MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Nose anatomy & histology MeSH
- Image Processing, Computer-Assisted methods MeSH
- Reproducibility of Results MeSH
- Lip anatomy & histology MeSH
- Cleft Palate pathology surgery MeSH
- Cleft Lip pathology surgery MeSH
- Visual Analog Scale MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Plastic Surgery Procedures methods MeSH
- Nose Deformities, Acquired pathology MeSH
- Imaging, Three-Dimensional methods MeSH
- Check Tag
- Child MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
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