The International journal of prosthodontics · 2014
Development of a morphing technique for predicting the position and size of an artificial ear in hemifacial microsomia patients.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Coward Trevor J, Richards Robin, Scott Brendan J J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: People with hemifacial microsomia may be missing an ear on the affected side of the face. The principal aim of the study was to develop a morphing technique and to determine whether it could be used to appropriately position an artificial ear, as well as to give an indication of prosthesis size in comparison with the natural ear. Comparisons also were made between the artificial ears being worn by the patients with their natural ears.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from stereophotogrammetry images of the faces of 10 people were converted into stereolithographic format. Anthropometric points on the face and ear of the unaffected side were plotted. By a process of scaling, the distance between facial landmarks on the unaffected side was estimated for the affected side so as to identify where the morphed ear would be positioned once generated.
RESULTS: Generally, the morphed ears appeared to be in acceptable positions. There was a statistically significant difference between the position of the morphed and natural ears (P = .011), as well as the artificial and natural ears (P = .001), but this was unlikely to have any clinical implications. There were no significant differences among the sizes of the natural, morphed, and artificial ears (P = .072).
CONCLUSIONS: Morphing appears to offer a more precise way of planning the positioning and construction of an artificial ear on patients with hemifacial microsomia than traditional methods. Differences in facial shape on either side of the face may impact on the process. This requires further study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from stereophotogrammetry images of the faces of 10 people were converted into stereolithographic format. Anthropometric points on the face and ear of the unaffected side were plotted. By a process of scaling, the distance between facial landmarks on the unaffected side was estimated for the affected side so as to identify where the morphed ear would be positioned once generated.
RESULTS: Generally, the morphed ears appeared to be in acceptable positions. There was a statistically significant difference between the position of the morphed and natural ears (P = .011), as well as the artificial and natural ears (P = .001), but this was unlikely to have any clinical implications. There were no significant differences among the sizes of the natural, morphed, and artificial ears (P = .072).
CONCLUSIONS: Morphing appears to offer a more precise way of planning the positioning and construction of an artificial ear on patients with hemifacial microsomia than traditional methods. Differences in facial shape on either side of the face may impact on the process. This requires further study.