International orthodontics · 2026
Accuracy of soft tissue profile predictions using WebCeph and Dolphin software in non-growing skeletal Class II cases treated with upper premolar extractions: A retrospective comparative 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.
Abou Chedid Sara, Moussallem Marianne, Akl Roula
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Aesthetic outcomes are a primary concern for adult orthodontic patients. Clinicians often rely on soft tissue simulation software, such as Dolphin Imaging (D-Tech) and WebCeph (D-Tech), to manage patient expectations. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of these two tools in predicting soft tissue profile changes in non-growing skeletal Class II patients treated with maxillary first premolar extractions.
METHODS: A retrospective comparative study was conducted on patients treated by the same practitioner with bilateral maxillary first premolar extractions and maximum anchorage. From a private-practice database of 2535 patients treated between January 2015 and January 2025, 34 met the inclusion criteria after eligibility screening. Pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs and profile photographs were used to generate simulations. Predicted cephalometric measurements from D-Tech and W-Tech were compared with each other and with the actual post-treatment results. Statistical analyses included paired t-tests, one-sample t-tests, Bland-Altman plots, and linear regression.
RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (10 males, 24 females; 35.7±3.5 years) were analysed. Both tools showed a significant discrepancy in the nasolabial angle versus actual results (P<0.001). D-Tech differed significantly in the subnasale to Holdaway-line distance (mean difference 0.81mm [95% CI 0.03 to 1.60]; P=0.042), while W-Tech differed in upper and lower lip position relative to the True Vertical Line (LL-TVL P=0.004; UL-TVL P=0.006). For the remaining parameters, both tools showed good agreement; D-Tech showed a proportional bias for lip-TVL position (greater underestimation at larger values), whereas W-Tech overestimated lower lip thickness.
CONCLUSION: Both Dolphin Imaging and WebCeph provide clinically applicable predictions for most soft tissue parameters. Several statistically significant lip-position discrepancies were within the range generally considered clinically imperceptible (=1.5-2.0mm), whereas the nasolabial angle showed a discrepancy that is both statistically and clinically relevant. Predictions should therefore be interpreted with caution, particularly for parameters prone to systematic bias.
METHODS: A retrospective comparative study was conducted on patients treated by the same practitioner with bilateral maxillary first premolar extractions and maximum anchorage. From a private-practice database of 2535 patients treated between January 2015 and January 2025, 34 met the inclusion criteria after eligibility screening. Pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs and profile photographs were used to generate simulations. Predicted cephalometric measurements from D-Tech and W-Tech were compared with each other and with the actual post-treatment results. Statistical analyses included paired t-tests, one-sample t-tests, Bland-Altman plots, and linear regression.
RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (10 males, 24 females; 35.7±3.5 years) were analysed. Both tools showed a significant discrepancy in the nasolabial angle versus actual results (P<0.001). D-Tech differed significantly in the subnasale to Holdaway-line distance (mean difference 0.81mm [95% CI 0.03 to 1.60]; P=0.042), while W-Tech differed in upper and lower lip position relative to the True Vertical Line (LL-TVL P=0.004; UL-TVL P=0.006). For the remaining parameters, both tools showed good agreement; D-Tech showed a proportional bias for lip-TVL position (greater underestimation at larger values), whereas W-Tech overestimated lower lip thickness.
CONCLUSION: Both Dolphin Imaging and WebCeph provide clinically applicable predictions for most soft tissue parameters. Several statistically significant lip-position discrepancies were within the range generally considered clinically imperceptible (=1.5-2.0mm), whereas the nasolabial angle showed a discrepancy that is both statistically and clinically relevant. Predictions should therefore be interpreted with caution, particularly for parameters prone to systematic bias.