Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Rating nasolabial appearance on three-dimensional images in cleft lip and palate: a comparison with standard photographs.
Eur J Orthod. 2016 Apr; 38(2):197-201.EJ

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Judgement of nasolabial aesthetics in cleft lip and palate (CLP) is a vital component of assessment of treatment outcome. It is usually performed based on two-dimensional (2D) facial photographs. An increasing use of three-dimensional (3D) imaging warrants an assessment if 3D images can substitute 2D photographs during aesthetic evaluation. The aim of this study was to compare reliability of rating nasolabial appearance on 3D images and standard 2D photographs in prepubertal children.

METHODS

Forty subjects (age: 8.8-12) with unilateral CLP treated according to a standardized protocol, who had 2D and 3D facial images were selected. Eight lay raters assessed nasal form, nasal deviation, vermilion border, and nasolabial profile on cropped 2D and 3D images using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Additionally, raters answer two questions: 1. Do 2D or 3D images provide more information on nasolabial aesthetics? and 2. Is aesthetic evaluation easier on 2D or 3D images?

RESULTS

Intrarater agreement demonstrated a better reliability of ratings performed on 3D images than 2D images (correlation coefficients for 3D images ranged from 0.733 to 0.857; for 2D images from 0.151 to 0.611). The mean scores showed, however, no difference between 2D and 3D formats (>0.05). 3D images were regarded more informative than 2D images (P = 0.001) but probably more difficult to evaluate (P = 0.06).

LIMITATIONS

Basal view of the nose was not assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

3D images seem better than 2D images for rating nasolabial aesthetics but raters should familiarize themselves with them prior to rating.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Division of Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Stomatology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia, Departments of.Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology.Community and Restorative Dentistry, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology.Department of Orthodontics, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic, and *****Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Piotr.Fudalej@zmk.unibe.ch.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

25900054

Citation

Stebel, Adam, et al. "Rating Nasolabial Appearance On Three-dimensional Images in Cleft Lip and Palate: a Comparison With Standard Photographs." European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 38, no. 2, 2016, pp. 197-201.
Stebel A, Desmedt D, Bronkhorst E, et al. Rating nasolabial appearance on three-dimensional images in cleft lip and palate: a comparison with standard photographs. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(2):197-201.
Stebel, A., Desmedt, D., Bronkhorst, E., Kuijpers, M. A., & Fudalej, P. S. (2016). Rating nasolabial appearance on three-dimensional images in cleft lip and palate: a comparison with standard photographs. European Journal of Orthodontics, 38(2), 197-201. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv024
Stebel A, et al. Rating Nasolabial Appearance On Three-dimensional Images in Cleft Lip and Palate: a Comparison With Standard Photographs. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(2):197-201. PubMed PMID: 25900054.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Rating nasolabial appearance on three-dimensional images in cleft lip and palate: a comparison with standard photographs. AU - Stebel,Adam, AU - Desmedt,Dries, AU - Bronkhorst,Ewald, AU - Kuijpers,Mette A, AU - Fudalej,Piotr S, Y1 - 2015/04/21/ PY - 2015/4/23/entrez PY - 2015/4/23/pubmed PY - 2016/11/15/medline SP - 197 EP - 201 JF - European journal of orthodontics JO - Eur J Orthod VL - 38 IS - 2 N2 - BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Judgement of nasolabial aesthetics in cleft lip and palate (CLP) is a vital component of assessment of treatment outcome. It is usually performed based on two-dimensional (2D) facial photographs. An increasing use of three-dimensional (3D) imaging warrants an assessment if 3D images can substitute 2D photographs during aesthetic evaluation. The aim of this study was to compare reliability of rating nasolabial appearance on 3D images and standard 2D photographs in prepubertal children. METHODS: Forty subjects (age: 8.8-12) with unilateral CLP treated according to a standardized protocol, who had 2D and 3D facial images were selected. Eight lay raters assessed nasal form, nasal deviation, vermilion border, and nasolabial profile on cropped 2D and 3D images using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Additionally, raters answer two questions: 1. Do 2D or 3D images provide more information on nasolabial aesthetics? and 2. Is aesthetic evaluation easier on 2D or 3D images? RESULTS: Intrarater agreement demonstrated a better reliability of ratings performed on 3D images than 2D images (correlation coefficients for 3D images ranged from 0.733 to 0.857; for 2D images from 0.151 to 0.611). The mean scores showed, however, no difference between 2D and 3D formats (>0.05). 3D images were regarded more informative than 2D images (P = 0.001) but probably more difficult to evaluate (P = 0.06). LIMITATIONS: Basal view of the nose was not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: 3D images seem better than 2D images for rating nasolabial aesthetics but raters should familiarize themselves with them prior to rating. SN - 1460-2210 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/25900054/Rating_nasolabial_appearance_on_three_dimensional_images_in_cleft_lip_and_palate:_a_comparison_with_standard_photographs_ L2 - https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ejo/cjv024 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -