American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2023
Enhancing skeletal stability and Class III correction through active orthodontist engagement in virtual surgical planning: A voxel-based 3-dimensional analysis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Barone Selene, Cevidanes Lucia, Miranda Felicia, Gurgel Marcela Lima, Anchling Luc, Hutin Nathan, Bianchi Jonas, Goncalves Joao Roberto, Giudice Amerigo
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Skeletal stability after bimaxillary surgical correction of Class III malocclusion was investigated through a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the maxilla and the distal and proximal mandibular segments using a 3-dimensional voxel-based superimposition among virtual surgical predictions performed by the orthodontist in close communication with the maxillofacial surgeon and 12-18 months postoperative outcomes.
METHODS: A comprehensive secondary data analysis was conducted on deidentified preoperative (1 month before surgery [T1]) and 12-18 months postoperative (midterm [T2]) cone-beam computed tomography scans, along with virtual surgical planning (VSP) data obtained by Dolphin Imaging software. The sample for the study consisted of 17 patients (mean age, 24.8 ± 3.5 years). Using 3D Slicer software, automated tools based on deep-learning approaches were used for cone-beam computed tomography orientation, registration, bone segmentation, and landmark identification. Colormaps were generated for qualitative analysis, whereas linear and angular differences between the planned (T1-VSP) and observed (T1-T2) outcomes were calculated for quantitative assessments. Statistical analysis was conducted with a significance level of α = 0.05.
RESULTS: The midterm surgical outcomes revealed a slight but significantly less maxillary advancement compared with the planned position (mean difference, 1.84 ± 1.50 mm; P = 0.004). The repositioning of the mandibular distal segment was stable, with insignificant differences in linear (T1-VSP, 1.01 ± 3.66 mm; T1-T2, 0.32 ± 4.17 mm) and angular (T1-VSP, 1.53° ± 1.60°; T1-T2, 1.54° ± 1.50°) displacements (P >0.05). The proximal segments exhibited lateral displacement within 1.5° for both the mandibular right and left ramus at T1-VSP and T1-T2 (P >0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of fully digital planned and surgically repositioned maxilla and mandible revealed excellent precision. In the midterm surgical outcomes of maxillary advancement, a minor deviation from the planned anterior movement was observed.
METHODS: A comprehensive secondary data analysis was conducted on deidentified preoperative (1 month before surgery [T1]) and 12-18 months postoperative (midterm [T2]) cone-beam computed tomography scans, along with virtual surgical planning (VSP) data obtained by Dolphin Imaging software. The sample for the study consisted of 17 patients (mean age, 24.8 ± 3.5 years). Using 3D Slicer software, automated tools based on deep-learning approaches were used for cone-beam computed tomography orientation, registration, bone segmentation, and landmark identification. Colormaps were generated for qualitative analysis, whereas linear and angular differences between the planned (T1-VSP) and observed (T1-T2) outcomes were calculated for quantitative assessments. Statistical analysis was conducted with a significance level of α = 0.05.
RESULTS: The midterm surgical outcomes revealed a slight but significantly less maxillary advancement compared with the planned position (mean difference, 1.84 ± 1.50 mm; P = 0.004). The repositioning of the mandibular distal segment was stable, with insignificant differences in linear (T1-VSP, 1.01 ± 3.66 mm; T1-T2, 0.32 ± 4.17 mm) and angular (T1-VSP, 1.53° ± 1.60°; T1-T2, 1.54° ± 1.50°) displacements (P >0.05). The proximal segments exhibited lateral displacement within 1.5° for both the mandibular right and left ramus at T1-VSP and T1-T2 (P >0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of fully digital planned and surgically repositioned maxilla and mandible revealed excellent precision. In the midterm surgical outcomes of maxillary advancement, a minor deviation from the planned anterior movement was observed.