The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2014
Quantitative Assessment of Facial Asymmetry Using Three-Dimensional Surface Imaging in Adults: Validating the Precision and Repeatability of a Global Approach.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Kornreich Davida, Mitchell Adele A, Webb Bryn D, Cristian Ingrid, Jabs Ethylin Wang
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Comparison of global versus landmark analyses of facial asymmetry using three-dimensional photogrammetry to establish a precise method for evaluating facial asymmetry.
DESIGN: The landmark-based approach utilized anthropometric data points. Our global approach involved registration of mirror images, independent of a midplane, to calculate a root mean square (RMS) value. We analyzed precision and technical and operator error of both methods.
PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred fifty adults participated in this study.
RESULTS: We found that the global method has better precision and repeatability with a significantly lower error rate than the landmark-based method. In adults, the average RMS was 0.6253 mm with a standard deviation of 0.16.
CONCLUSIONS: Our facial asymmetry measurement is more accurate than landmark-based measurements. This method is quick, reliable, and results in generation of a RMS score and a corresponding color-coded facial map that highlights regions of higher and lower asymmetry. This method may be used as a screening tool for asymmetry in both the clinical and research settings.
DESIGN: The landmark-based approach utilized anthropometric data points. Our global approach involved registration of mirror images, independent of a midplane, to calculate a root mean square (RMS) value. We analyzed precision and technical and operator error of both methods.
PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred fifty adults participated in this study.
RESULTS: We found that the global method has better precision and repeatability with a significantly lower error rate than the landmark-based method. In adults, the average RMS was 0.6253 mm with a standard deviation of 0.16.
CONCLUSIONS: Our facial asymmetry measurement is more accurate than landmark-based measurements. This method is quick, reliable, and results in generation of a RMS score and a corresponding color-coded facial map that highlights regions of higher and lower asymmetry. This method may be used as a screening tool for asymmetry in both the clinical and research settings.