Evaluating sagittal condylar inclination: a comparative analysis of various digital workflow measures.

IF 2.4 2区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Head & Face Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1186/s13005-024-00471-9

Yeqing Wang, Xin Wang, Litong Li, Meng Cao

{"title":"Evaluating sagittal condylar inclination: a comparative analysis of various digital workflow measures.","authors":"Yeqing Wang, Xin Wang, Litong Li, Meng Cao","doi":"10.1186/s13005-024-00471-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This study aims to compare sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) measurements derived from three workflows: intraoral scan (IOS) aligned with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), IOS aligned with facial scan (FS), and a jaw motion analyzer (JMA) system, in a cohort of young individuals with established normal occlusion. Additionally, the study aims to identify sources contributing to variance in these measurement approaches.Methods: Twenty-four healthy individuals exhibiting normal occlusion were enrolled in this clinical trial. The SCI was delineated using a virtual articulator (VA) by aligning IOS with both CBCT and FS, creating two distinct workflows labeled CBCT-IOS and FS-IOS, respectively. Concurrently, SCI measurements were also acquired using a JMA. The normality of data distribution for the difference in bilateral SCI measurements within each workflow was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Depending on the outcomes of this test, we utilized either a paired-sample T-test or Wilcoxon test for bilateral SCI comparisons. The inter-workflow differences were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test. Bland-Altman plots were assess the interchangeability and consistency across each pair of digital methods and to evaluate the aggregate consistency among the trio of digital approaches.Results: The analysis revealed that the CBCT-IOS workflow yielded the lowest average SCI measurements, whereas the JMA workflow produced the highest values. No significant differences were found in the SCI measurements between the left and right sides obtained by CBCT-IOS and JMA (P > .05), with the exception of the FS-IOS workflow (P = .002). Additionally, inter-flow comparisons revealed no significant differences in SCI measurements (P > .05), except when contrasting the SCI as measured by CBCT-IOS and JMA (P = .0131). The Bland-Altman plots demonstrated a high degree of consistency and 95% limits of agreement across the three digital workflows.Conclusion: SCI measurements obtained from the three digital workflows exhibit a high degree of consistency and are interchangeable, affirming their clinical applicability for precise SCI assessment in young individuals with normal occlusion.","PeriodicalId":12994,"journal":{"name":"Head & Face Medicine","volume":"20 1","pages":"69"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566610/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Head & Face Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-024-00471-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study aims to compare sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) measurements derived from three workflows: intraoral scan (IOS) aligned with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), IOS aligned with facial scan (FS), and a jaw motion analyzer (JMA) system, in a cohort of young individuals with established normal occlusion. Additionally, the study aims to identify sources contributing to variance in these measurement approaches.

Methods: Twenty-four healthy individuals exhibiting normal occlusion were enrolled in this clinical trial. The SCI was delineated using a virtual articulator (VA) by aligning IOS with both CBCT and FS, creating two distinct workflows labeled CBCT-IOS and FS-IOS, respectively. Concurrently, SCI measurements were also acquired using a JMA. The normality of data distribution for the difference in bilateral SCI measurements within each workflow was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Depending on the outcomes of this test, we utilized either a paired-sample T-test or Wilcoxon test for bilateral SCI comparisons. The inter-workflow differences were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test. Bland-Altman plots were assess the interchangeability and consistency across each pair of digital methods and to evaluate the aggregate consistency among the trio of digital approaches.

Results: The analysis revealed that the CBCT-IOS workflow yielded the lowest average SCI measurements, whereas the JMA workflow produced the highest values. No significant differences were found in the SCI measurements between the left and right sides obtained by CBCT-IOS and JMA (P > .05), with the exception of the FS-IOS workflow (P = .002). Additionally, inter-flow comparisons revealed no significant differences in SCI measurements (P > .05), except when contrasting the SCI as measured by CBCT-IOS and JMA (P = .0131). The Bland-Altman plots demonstrated a high degree of consistency and 95% limits of agreement across the three digital workflows.

Conclusion: SCI measurements obtained from the three digital workflows exhibit a high degree of consistency and are interchangeable, affirming their clinical applicability for precise SCI assessment in young individuals with normal occlusion.

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估矢状髁状突倾斜度：各种数字工作流程测量方法的比较分析。

简介：本研究旨在比较三种工作流程得出的矢状髁状突倾角（SCI）测量结果：与锥束计算机断层扫描（CBCT）对齐的口内扫描（IOS）、与面部扫描（FS）对齐的口内扫描（IOS）以及颌骨运动分析仪（JMA）系统。此外，该研究还旨在找出造成这些测量方法差异的原因：24名咬合正常的健康人参加了此次临床试验。通过将 IOS 与 CBCT 和 FS 对齐，使用虚拟关节器（VA）划定 SCI，创建两个不同的工作流程，分别标记为 CBCT-IOS 和 FS-IOS。同时，还使用 JMA 采集了 SCI 测量数据。使用 Shapiro-Wilk 检验法检验了每个工作流程中双侧 SCI 测量值差异的数据分布的正态性。根据检验结果，我们采用配对样本 T 检验或 Wilcoxon 检验进行双侧 SCI 比较。工作流程间的差异采用 Kruskal-Wallis H 检验进行评估。布兰德-阿尔特曼图评估了每对数字方法之间的互换性和一致性，并评估了三种数字方法之间的总体一致性：分析结果显示，CBCT-IOS 工作流程得出的 SCI 平均测量值最低，而 JMA 工作流程得出的数值最高。通过 CBCT-IOS 和 JMA 获得的左右侧 SCI 测量值没有发现明显差异（P > .05），但 FS-IOS 工作流程除外（P = .002）。此外，流程间比较显示 SCI 测量值无明显差异（P > .05），但 CBCT-IOS 和 JMA 测量的 SCI 值对比除外（P = .0131）。布兰-阿尔特曼图显示了三种数字工作流程的高度一致性和 95% 的一致性限值：结论：通过三种数字工作流程获得的 SCI 测量值具有高度一致性和互换性，这肯定了它们在临床上适用于对闭塞正常的年轻人进行精确的 SCI 评估。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Head & Face Medicine DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

4.70

自引率

3.30%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Head & Face Medicine is a multidisciplinary open access journal that publishes basic and clinical research concerning all aspects of cranial, facial and oral conditions. The journal covers all aspects of cranial, facial and oral diseases and their management. It has been designed as a multidisciplinary journal for clinicians and researchers involved in the diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of diseases which affect the human head and face. The journal is wide-ranging, covering the development, aetiology, epidemiology and therapy of head and face diseases to the basic science that underlies these diseases. Management of head and face diseases includes all aspects of surgical and non-surgical treatments including psychopharmacological therapies.