Evaluation of the Reliability of Facial Models Digitalized with Different Imaging Methods in Cleft Lip and Palate.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q2 Dentistry
Hüseyin Budak, Hanife Nuray Yilmaz
{"title":"Evaluation of the Reliability of Facial Models Digitalized with Different Imaging Methods in Cleft Lip and Palate.","authors":"Hüseyin Budak, Hanife Nuray Yilmaz","doi":"10.1177/10556656251314264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the reliability of different digitizing methods not only among themselves but also with direct measurements from facial plaster models of unoperated cleft babies.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Single-center retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The study consisted facial models of babies with unilateral (UCLP, n = 65) and bilateral (BCLP, n = 65) cleft lip and palate from the archives of the Department of Orthodontics, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. Those models were digitized using Medit i600, iTero Element 2 (Align Technology), and E3 3Shape scanning devices. A digital caliper with a 0.03 precision (INSIZE Digital Caliper) was used for manual measurements on plaster models. 3Shape Ortho Analyzer software was used for digital measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All scanning methods were reliable and compatible with a rate of 90% or more compared to manual measurements. The E3 3Shape device showed the lowest deviations (UCLP, between 0.04 and 0.11 mm; BCLP, between 0.04 and 0.25 mm) from manual measurements. In the UCLP group, Medit i600 presented the highest deviation (0.15-0.58 mm) whereas Itero Element 2 showed the highest deviation in the BCLP group (0.16-0.46 mm). Although there were statistically significant differences in the deviations of digital measurements, the values were still within clinically acceptable limits.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intraoral scanners were less reliable in topographic measurements, especially in cases with increased depth. Although the highest compatible results were found with E3 3Shape model scanner, iTero Element 2 and Medit i600 were promising and advisable for digitizing and archiving the plaster models of babies with cleft lip and palate.</p>","PeriodicalId":49220,"journal":{"name":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","volume":" ","pages":"10556656251314264"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656251314264","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the reliability of different digitizing methods not only among themselves but also with direct measurements from facial plaster models of unoperated cleft babies.

Design: Single-center retrospective study.

Setting: The study consisted facial models of babies with unilateral (UCLP, n = 65) and bilateral (BCLP, n = 65) cleft lip and palate from the archives of the Department of Orthodontics, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. Those models were digitized using Medit i600, iTero Element 2 (Align Technology), and E3 3Shape scanning devices. A digital caliper with a 0.03 precision (INSIZE Digital Caliper) was used for manual measurements on plaster models. 3Shape Ortho Analyzer software was used for digital measurements.

Results: All scanning methods were reliable and compatible with a rate of 90% or more compared to manual measurements. The E3 3Shape device showed the lowest deviations (UCLP, between 0.04 and 0.11 mm; BCLP, between 0.04 and 0.25 mm) from manual measurements. In the UCLP group, Medit i600 presented the highest deviation (0.15-0.58 mm) whereas Itero Element 2 showed the highest deviation in the BCLP group (0.16-0.46 mm). Although there were statistically significant differences in the deviations of digital measurements, the values were still within clinically acceptable limits.

Conclusion: Intraoral scanners were less reliable in topographic measurements, especially in cases with increased depth. Although the highest compatible results were found with E3 3Shape model scanner, iTero Element 2 and Medit i600 were promising and advisable for digitizing and archiving the plaster models of babies with cleft lip and palate.

不同成像方法数字化唇腭裂面部模型的可靠性评价。
目的:比较不同数字化方法之间的可靠性以及与未手术腭裂婴儿面部石膏模型直接测量的可靠性。设计:单中心回顾性研究。背景:本研究采用土耳其伊斯坦布尔马尔马拉大学正畸科档案中单侧(UCLP, n = 65)和双侧(BCLP, n = 65)唇腭裂婴儿面部模型。这些模型使用Medit i600、iTero Element 2 (Align Technology)和E3 3Shape扫描设备进行数字化。使用精度为0.03的数字卡尺(INSIZE数字卡尺)对石膏模型进行手动测量。采用3Shape Ortho Analyzer软件进行数字测量。结果:与人工测量相比,所有的扫描方法都是可靠的,兼容率为90%以上。E3 3Shape器械的UCLP最小,在0.04 ~ 0.11 mm之间;BCLP, 0.04和0.25毫米之间)从手动测量。在UCLP组中,Medit i600偏差最大(0.15-0.58 mm),而在BCLP组中,Itero Element 2偏差最大(0.16-0.46 mm)。虽然数字测量的偏差在统计学上有显著差异,但这些值仍在临床可接受的范围内。结论:口腔内扫描仪在地形测量中不太可靠,特别是在深度增加的情况下。虽然E3 3Shape模型扫描仪的兼容性最高,但iTero Element 2和Medit i600对于唇腭裂婴儿石膏模型的数字化和档案是有希望和可取的。
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
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
36.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal (CPCJ) is the premiere peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, international journal dedicated to current research on etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in all areas pertaining to craniofacial anomalies. CPCJ reports on basic science and clinical research aimed at better elucidating the pathogenesis, pathology, and optimal methods of treatment of cleft and craniofacial anomalies. The journal strives to foster communication and cooperation among professionals from all specialties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信