Comparison of two methods for segmentation of the nasoalveolar defect and design of a three-dimensional surgical template in patients with cleft lip and palate: a retrospective study.

T Würsching, A Kesztyűs, L Pottel, G Swennen, K Nagy
{"title":"Comparison of two methods for segmentation of the nasoalveolar defect and design of a three-dimensional surgical template in patients with cleft lip and palate: a retrospective study.","authors":"T Würsching, A Kesztyűs, L Pottel, G Swennen, K Nagy","doi":"10.1016/j.ijom.2025.05.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Alveolar bone grafting is an essential step in the treatment of cleft lip and palate. A method for designing a surgical template for the ideal graft volume and shape has been published previously. The aim of this study was to compare different software for the segmentation of the graft and design of the surgical template. Ten patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate were included. iPlan ENT was used for the first workflow and 3D Slicer and Blender for the second workflow. Every plan was done by two investigators. The planning time was compared between the two workflows and the two investigators. The results of the segmentation were compared by volumetric analysis. Planning with iPlan was significantly faster than 3D Slicer/Blender (P = 0.037 and P = 0.005, first and second planning by investigator 1; P = 0.017 for investigator 2). The median planning time for the experienced investigator was 297 s with iPlan and 390 s with 3D Slicer/Blender. The mean difference in graft volume was not significant (0.042 cm<sup>3</sup>). The mean ± standard deviation Hausdorff distance was 1.52 ± 0.57 mm and Dice similarity coefficient was 0.91 ± 0.02. These results show that both workflows are viable.</p>","PeriodicalId":94053,"journal":{"name":"International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2025.05.006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Alveolar bone grafting is an essential step in the treatment of cleft lip and palate. A method for designing a surgical template for the ideal graft volume and shape has been published previously. The aim of this study was to compare different software for the segmentation of the graft and design of the surgical template. Ten patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate were included. iPlan ENT was used for the first workflow and 3D Slicer and Blender for the second workflow. Every plan was done by two investigators. The planning time was compared between the two workflows and the two investigators. The results of the segmentation were compared by volumetric analysis. Planning with iPlan was significantly faster than 3D Slicer/Blender (P = 0.037 and P = 0.005, first and second planning by investigator 1; P = 0.017 for investigator 2). The median planning time for the experienced investigator was 297 s with iPlan and 390 s with 3D Slicer/Blender. The mean difference in graft volume was not significant (0.042 cm3). The mean ± standard deviation Hausdorff distance was 1.52 ± 0.57 mm and Dice similarity coefficient was 0.91 ± 0.02. These results show that both workflows are viable.

唇腭裂鼻牙槽缺损分割的两种方法的比较及三维手术模板的设计:一项回顾性研究。
牙槽骨移植是治疗唇腭裂的重要步骤。一种设计理想移植物体积和形状的手术模板的方法已经发表。本研究的目的是比较用于移植物分割和手术模板设计的不同软件。选取单侧唇腭裂患者10例。iPlan ENT用于第一个工作流,3D切片器和Blender用于第二个工作流。每个计划都是由两个调查员完成的。比较了两种工作流程和两名调查员的计划时间。用体积分析法对分割结果进行比较。iPlan的计划明显快于3D Slicer/Blender (P = 0.037和P = 0.005),研究者1进行第一次和第二次计划;研究者2的P = 0.017)。有经验的研究者使用iPlan的计划时间中位数为297秒,使用3D切片机/搅拌机的计划时间中位数为390秒。移植物体积的平均差异不显著(0.042 cm3)。平均±标准差豪斯多夫距离为1.52±0.57 mm, Dice相似系数为0.91±0.02。这些结果表明这两个工作流都是可行的。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信