American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2021
Three-dimensional tomographic assessment of the upper airway using 2 different imaging software programs: A comparison study.
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.
Garcia-Usó Michele, Lima Thiago F, Trindade Inge Elly K, Pimenta Luiz Andre F, Trindade-Suedam Ivy Kiemle
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Several imaging software programs with different tools are available for upper airway (UAW) analysis by means of cone beam computed tomography. Because of this wide variability, this study aimed to compare the reproducibility of two of the most used software programs on UAW segmentation, that is, Dolphin Imaging (Dolphin Imaging and Management Solutions, Chatsworth, Calif) and Mimics Research (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium).
METHODS: The sample consisted of 50 scans of adult subjects with Class III malocclusion; pharyngeal volume and minimal cross-sectional area (mCSA) were assessed twice by 2 experienced evaluators using both software programs. Intra- and intersoftware and/or evaluator agreement were calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Bland-Altman analysis was used to visualize the intersoftware and interevaluator agreement.
RESULTS: Using Mimics Research and Dolphin Imaging, the respective mean values of volume (cm3) were 27.1 ± 8.4 and 24.7 ± 8.1 (P < 0.05) and of mCSA (mm2) were 167.8 ± 95.5 and 176.5 ± 102.3 (P < 0.05). Although differences between software packages were observed on both the analyzed variables, the results showed a high intersoftware agreement, with ICC of 0.87 (volume) and 0.97 (mCSA) and mean bias of 24.6 (volume) and -8.8 (mCSA). A high intrasoftware agreement was also observed, with values varying from 0.83 to 0.99. Excellent intra- and interevaluator agreement was also obtained, with ICC values from 0.93 to 0.99.
CONCLUSIONS: Dolphin Imaging and Mimics Research individually provide highly reproducible results, with clinically acceptable agreement between them for UAW segmentation, providing consistent values for volume and mCSA.
METHODS: The sample consisted of 50 scans of adult subjects with Class III malocclusion; pharyngeal volume and minimal cross-sectional area (mCSA) were assessed twice by 2 experienced evaluators using both software programs. Intra- and intersoftware and/or evaluator agreement were calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Bland-Altman analysis was used to visualize the intersoftware and interevaluator agreement.
RESULTS: Using Mimics Research and Dolphin Imaging, the respective mean values of volume (cm3) were 27.1 ± 8.4 and 24.7 ± 8.1 (P < 0.05) and of mCSA (mm2) were 167.8 ± 95.5 and 176.5 ± 102.3 (P < 0.05). Although differences between software packages were observed on both the analyzed variables, the results showed a high intersoftware agreement, with ICC of 0.87 (volume) and 0.97 (mCSA) and mean bias of 24.6 (volume) and -8.8 (mCSA). A high intrasoftware agreement was also observed, with values varying from 0.83 to 0.99. Excellent intra- and interevaluator agreement was also obtained, with ICC values from 0.93 to 0.99.
CONCLUSIONS: Dolphin Imaging and Mimics Research individually provide highly reproducible results, with clinically acceptable agreement between them for UAW segmentation, providing consistent values for volume and mCSA.