Kanza Khan, S. Shaheed, Arsalan Khan, Faizan Ul-Hassan, Nasir Mushtaq, Ayesha Iftikhar
{"title":"比较临床和计算机视觉治疗目标在预测骨骼二级患者软组织状况方面的积极作用。","authors":"Kanza Khan, S. Shaheed, Arsalan Khan, Faizan Ul-Hassan, Nasir Mushtaq, Ayesha Iftikhar","doi":"10.21608/eos.2023.177667.1074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the soft tissue prediction obtained via positive clinical visual treatment objective (VTO) with computerized VTO in patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion. Methods: 30 skeletal class II patients with ANB>4 were included in the study. Computerized VTO was done using pretreatment lateral cephalograms and profile picture at rest using the Viewbox software. Clinical VTO was obtained by asking the patient to protrude lower jaw in 5mm increments and the obtained profile photographs superimposed on the initial profile at rest. Distances in soft tissue points between computerized VTO and clinical VTO were measured in millimeters at eight cephalometric soft tissue landmarks. Paired-sample t tests were done for intergroup comparisons. Results: For most of the variables, no significant differences were found between the groups. In the X-axis the most accurate prediction was found to be mentolabial sulcus while soft tissue menton was the least accurate landmark succeeded by soft tissue gnathion. In the Y-axis, stomion superius prediction and labrale inferius prediction were the most accurate measurements while mentolabial sulcus prediction was the least accurate. None of the differences were clinically significant. Conclusions: The soft tissue outcomes of positive clinical VTO are clinically acceptable in both sagittal and vertical planes and can be used for estimating post treatment soft tissue profile in skeletal class II patients.","PeriodicalId":483969,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Orthodontic Journal","volume":"39 14","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of positive clinical and computerized visual treatment objectives in prediction of soft tissue profile of skeletal class II patients.\",\"authors\":\"Kanza Khan, S. Shaheed, Arsalan Khan, Faizan Ul-Hassan, Nasir Mushtaq, Ayesha Iftikhar\",\"doi\":\"10.21608/eos.2023.177667.1074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the soft tissue prediction obtained via positive clinical visual treatment objective (VTO) with computerized VTO in patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion. Methods: 30 skeletal class II patients with ANB>4 were included in the study. Computerized VTO was done using pretreatment lateral cephalograms and profile picture at rest using the Viewbox software. Clinical VTO was obtained by asking the patient to protrude lower jaw in 5mm increments and the obtained profile photographs superimposed on the initial profile at rest. Distances in soft tissue points between computerized VTO and clinical VTO were measured in millimeters at eight cephalometric soft tissue landmarks. Paired-sample t tests were done for intergroup comparisons. Results: For most of the variables, no significant differences were found between the groups. In the X-axis the most accurate prediction was found to be mentolabial sulcus while soft tissue menton was the least accurate landmark succeeded by soft tissue gnathion. In the Y-axis, stomion superius prediction and labrale inferius prediction were the most accurate measurements while mentolabial sulcus prediction was the least accurate. None of the differences were clinically significant. Conclusions: The soft tissue outcomes of positive clinical VTO are clinically acceptable in both sagittal and vertical planes and can be used for estimating post treatment soft tissue profile in skeletal class II patients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":483969,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Egyptian Orthodontic Journal\",\"volume\":\"39 14\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Egyptian Orthodontic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21608/eos.2023.177667.1074\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Orthodontic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/eos.2023.177667.1074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
简介本研究的目的是比较通过临床视觉治疗目标(VTO)和计算机视觉治疗目标对骨骼Ⅱ类错颌畸形患者的软组织预测。方法:研究纳入了30名ANB>4的骨骼Ⅱ类患者。使用Viewbox软件,通过治疗前的侧位头影和静止时的轮廓照片完成计算机VTO。临床 VTO 是通过要求患者以 5 毫米的增量突出下颌,并将获得的轮廓照片叠加到静止时的初始轮廓上而获得的。计算机化 VTO 和临床 VTO 之间的软组织点距离是在八个头颅软组织标志点上测量的,单位为毫米。组间比较采用配对样本 t 检验。结果显示就大多数变量而言,两组之间没有发现明显差异。在 X 轴上,预测最准确的地标是门静脉沟,而预测最不准确的地标是软组织门静脉沟,其次是软组织门静脉沟。在 Y 轴上,stomion superius 预测和 labrale inferius 预测是最准确的测量,而 mentolabial sulcus 预测是最不准确的。这些差异均无临床意义。结论临床 VTO 阳性的软组织结果在矢状面和垂直面上都是临床可接受的,可用于估计骨骼 II 类患者治疗后的软组织概况。
Comparison of positive clinical and computerized visual treatment objectives in prediction of soft tissue profile of skeletal class II patients.
Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the soft tissue prediction obtained via positive clinical visual treatment objective (VTO) with computerized VTO in patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion. Methods: 30 skeletal class II patients with ANB>4 were included in the study. Computerized VTO was done using pretreatment lateral cephalograms and profile picture at rest using the Viewbox software. Clinical VTO was obtained by asking the patient to protrude lower jaw in 5mm increments and the obtained profile photographs superimposed on the initial profile at rest. Distances in soft tissue points between computerized VTO and clinical VTO were measured in millimeters at eight cephalometric soft tissue landmarks. Paired-sample t tests were done for intergroup comparisons. Results: For most of the variables, no significant differences were found between the groups. In the X-axis the most accurate prediction was found to be mentolabial sulcus while soft tissue menton was the least accurate landmark succeeded by soft tissue gnathion. In the Y-axis, stomion superius prediction and labrale inferius prediction were the most accurate measurements while mentolabial sulcus prediction was the least accurate. None of the differences were clinically significant. Conclusions: The soft tissue outcomes of positive clinical VTO are clinically acceptable in both sagittal and vertical planes and can be used for estimating post treatment soft tissue profile in skeletal class II patients.