American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2016
Comparison and reproducibility of 2 regions of reference for maxillary regional registration with cone-beam computed tomography.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Ruellas Antonio Carlos de Oliveira, Huanca Ghislanzoni Luis T, Gomes Marcelo Regis, Danesi Carlotta, Lione Roberta, Nguyen Tung, McNamara James A, Cozza Paola, Franchi Lorenzo, Cevidanes Lucia Helena Soares
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to evaluate the differences between 2 regions of maxillary voxel-based registration and to test the reproducibility of the registration.
METHODS: Three-dimensional models were built for before-treatment (T1) and after-treatment (T2) based on cone-beam computed tomography images from 16 growing subjects. Landmarks were labeled in all T2 models of the maxilla, and voxel-based registrations were performed independently by 2 observers at 2 times using 2 reference regions. The first region, the maxillary region, included the maxillary bone clipped inferiorly at the dentoalveolar processes, superiorly at the plane passing through the right and left orbitale points, laterally at the zygomatic processes through the orbitale point, and posteriorly at a plane passing through the distal surface of the second molars. In the second region, the palate and infrazygomatic region had different posterior and anterior limits (at the plane passing through the distal aspects of the first molars and the canines, respectively). The differences between the registration regions were measured by comparing the distances between corresponding landmarks in the T2 registered models and comparing the corresponding x, y, and z coordinates from corresponding landmarks. Statistical analysis of the differences between the T2 surface models was performed by evaluating the means and standard deviations of the distances between landmarks and by testing the agreement between coordinates from corresponding landmarks (intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman method).
RESULTS: The means of the differences between landmarks from the palate and infrazygomatic region to the maxillary region 3-dimensional surface models at T2 for all regions of reference, times of registrations, and observer combinations were smaller than 0.5 mm. The intraclass correlation coefficient and the Bland-Altman plots indicated adequate concordance.
CONCLUSIONS: The 2 regions of regional maxillary registration showed similar results and adequate intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility values.
METHODS: Three-dimensional models were built for before-treatment (T1) and after-treatment (T2) based on cone-beam computed tomography images from 16 growing subjects. Landmarks were labeled in all T2 models of the maxilla, and voxel-based registrations were performed independently by 2 observers at 2 times using 2 reference regions. The first region, the maxillary region, included the maxillary bone clipped inferiorly at the dentoalveolar processes, superiorly at the plane passing through the right and left orbitale points, laterally at the zygomatic processes through the orbitale point, and posteriorly at a plane passing through the distal surface of the second molars. In the second region, the palate and infrazygomatic region had different posterior and anterior limits (at the plane passing through the distal aspects of the first molars and the canines, respectively). The differences between the registration regions were measured by comparing the distances between corresponding landmarks in the T2 registered models and comparing the corresponding x, y, and z coordinates from corresponding landmarks. Statistical analysis of the differences between the T2 surface models was performed by evaluating the means and standard deviations of the distances between landmarks and by testing the agreement between coordinates from corresponding landmarks (intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman method).
RESULTS: The means of the differences between landmarks from the palate and infrazygomatic region to the maxillary region 3-dimensional surface models at T2 for all regions of reference, times of registrations, and observer combinations were smaller than 0.5 mm. The intraclass correlation coefficient and the Bland-Altman plots indicated adequate concordance.
CONCLUSIONS: The 2 regions of regional maxillary registration showed similar results and adequate intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility values.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdolescentAlveolar ProcessAnatomic LandmarksAnatomy, Cross-SectionalCephalometryChildCone-Beam Computed TomographyCuspidFiducial MarkersHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalMaxillaModels, AnatomicMolarObserver VariationOrbitOrthodontic Appliances, FunctionalPalatal Expansion TechniquePalateReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesZygoma