American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2022
Asymmetry index for the photogrammetric assessment of facial asymmetry.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Blasi Anna, Nucera Riccardo, Ronsivalle Vincenzo, Candida Ettore, Grippaudo Cristina
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Facial asymmetry is common and can be clinically related to dental malocclusion, facial bone development, muscular imbalance, and soft tissues thickness, which should be assessed during diagnosis to choose proper treatment options. This study aimed to quantify the amount of symmetry/asymmetry in previously defined symmetrical and asymmetrical subjects, analyzing full-face 3-dimensional images.
METHODS: Seventy-six orthodontic patients' 3-dimensional face images were obtained with the 3dMD Trio-system (Atlanta, Ga) and processed with the Geomagic Control (64-bit; 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC) software. Patients were divided into symmetrical and asymmetrical groups through a surface-based technique. Sixteen facial landmarks were positioned, an asymmetry index was calculated for each landmark, and an evaluation diagram of facial asymmetry was created through the asymmetry index mean and standard deviation of symmetrical and asymmetrical landmarks.
RESULTS: The asymmetry index mean varied from 0.05 to 1.51 in the symmetrical group and from 0.05 to 2.84 in the asymmetrical group. This study suggests that landmarks located in the lower third of the face have a greater asymmetry index than other landmarks.
CONCLUSIONS: The landmark-based technique does not exhibit statistically significant differences among asymmetrical and symmetrical patients for some landmarks. This approach provides useful information about the localization and the extension of asymmetry, in which bilateral landmarks showed a higher amount of asymmetry than median landmarks.
METHODS: Seventy-six orthodontic patients' 3-dimensional face images were obtained with the 3dMD Trio-system (Atlanta, Ga) and processed with the Geomagic Control (64-bit; 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC) software. Patients were divided into symmetrical and asymmetrical groups through a surface-based technique. Sixteen facial landmarks were positioned, an asymmetry index was calculated for each landmark, and an evaluation diagram of facial asymmetry was created through the asymmetry index mean and standard deviation of symmetrical and asymmetrical landmarks.
RESULTS: The asymmetry index mean varied from 0.05 to 1.51 in the symmetrical group and from 0.05 to 2.84 in the asymmetrical group. This study suggests that landmarks located in the lower third of the face have a greater asymmetry index than other landmarks.
CONCLUSIONS: The landmark-based technique does not exhibit statistically significant differences among asymmetrical and symmetrical patients for some landmarks. This approach provides useful information about the localization and the extension of asymmetry, in which bilateral landmarks showed a higher amount of asymmetry than median landmarks.