Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

The Americleft Project: Comparison of Ratings Using Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Images for Evaluation of Nasolabial Appearance in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate.
J Craniofac Surg. 2018 Jan; 29(1):105-108.JC

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine if nasolabial appearance is rated with comparable results and reliability on 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetric facial images versus standard clinical photographs (2-dimensional). Twenty-seven consecutively treated patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate were selected. Six trained and calibrated raters assessed cropped 2- and 3-dimensional facial images. Nasolabial profile, nasolabial frontal, and vermillion border esthetics were rated with the 5-point scale described by Asher-McDade using the modified Q-sort method. Cropped 3-dimensional images were available for viewing by each rater, allowing for complete rotational control for viewing the images from all aspects. Two- and three-dimensional ratings were done separately and repeated the next day.Interrater reliability scores were good for 2-dimensional (κ = 0.607-0.710) and fair to good for 3-dimensional imaging (κ = 0.374-0.769). Intrarater reliability was good to very good for 2-dimensional (κ = 0.749-0.836) and moderate to good for 3-dimensional imaging (κ = 0.554-0.855). Bland-Altman analysis showed satisfactory agreement of 2- and 3-dimensional scores for nasolabial profile and nasolabial frontal, but more systematic error occurred in the assessment of vermillion border.Although 3-dimensional images may be perceived as more representative of a direct clinical facial evaluation, their use for subjective rating of nasolabial aesthetics was not more reliable than 2-dimensional images in this study. Conventional 2-dimensional images provide acceptable reliability while being readily accessible for most cleft palate centers.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Division of Plastic Surgery, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey.Lancaster Cleft Palate Clinic, Lancaster. Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA.Division of Orthodontics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Division of Orthodontics, Dalhousie University/IWK Health Care Centre, Halifax, Canada.Division of Orthodontics, SickKids Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.Division of Plastic Surgery, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey.Division of Plastic Surgery, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH.Lancaster Cleft Palate Clinic, Lancaster.Division of Plastic Surgery, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey.Division of Plastic Surgery, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey. Lancaster Cleft Palate Clinic, Lancaster.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

29286995

Citation

Jones, Christine M., et al. "The Americleft Project: Comparison of Ratings Using Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Images for Evaluation of Nasolabial Appearance in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate." The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, vol. 29, no. 1, 2018, pp. 105-108.
Jones CM, Roth B, Mercado AM, et al. The Americleft Project: Comparison of Ratings Using Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Images for Evaluation of Nasolabial Appearance in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(1):105-108.
Jones, C. M., Roth, B., Mercado, A. M., Russell, K. A., Daskalogiannakis, J., Samson, T. D., Hathaway, R. R., Smith, A., Mackay, D. R., & Long, R. E. (2018). The Americleft Project: Comparison of Ratings Using Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Images for Evaluation of Nasolabial Appearance in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate. The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 29(1), 105-108. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004102
Jones CM, et al. The Americleft Project: Comparison of Ratings Using Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Images for Evaluation of Nasolabial Appearance in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(1):105-108. PubMed PMID: 29286995.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - The Americleft Project: Comparison of Ratings Using Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Images for Evaluation of Nasolabial Appearance in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate. AU - Jones,Christine M, AU - Roth,Benjamin, AU - Mercado,Ana M, AU - Russell,Kathy A, AU - Daskalogiannakis,John, AU - Samson,Thomas D, AU - Hathaway,Ronald R, AU - Smith,Andrea, AU - Mackay,Donald R, AU - Long,Ross E,Jr PY - 2017/12/30/entrez PY - 2017/12/30/pubmed PY - 2018/7/10/medline SP - 105 EP - 108 JF - The Journal of craniofacial surgery JO - J Craniofac Surg VL - 29 IS - 1 N2 - This study was conducted to determine if nasolabial appearance is rated with comparable results and reliability on 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetric facial images versus standard clinical photographs (2-dimensional). Twenty-seven consecutively treated patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate were selected. Six trained and calibrated raters assessed cropped 2- and 3-dimensional facial images. Nasolabial profile, nasolabial frontal, and vermillion border esthetics were rated with the 5-point scale described by Asher-McDade using the modified Q-sort method. Cropped 3-dimensional images were available for viewing by each rater, allowing for complete rotational control for viewing the images from all aspects. Two- and three-dimensional ratings were done separately and repeated the next day.Interrater reliability scores were good for 2-dimensional (κ = 0.607-0.710) and fair to good for 3-dimensional imaging (κ = 0.374-0.769). Intrarater reliability was good to very good for 2-dimensional (κ = 0.749-0.836) and moderate to good for 3-dimensional imaging (κ = 0.554-0.855). Bland-Altman analysis showed satisfactory agreement of 2- and 3-dimensional scores for nasolabial profile and nasolabial frontal, but more systematic error occurred in the assessment of vermillion border.Although 3-dimensional images may be perceived as more representative of a direct clinical facial evaluation, their use for subjective rating of nasolabial aesthetics was not more reliable than 2-dimensional images in this study. Conventional 2-dimensional images provide acceptable reliability while being readily accessible for most cleft palate centers. SN - 1536-3732 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/29286995/The_Americleft_Project:_Comparison_of_Ratings_Using_Two_Dimensional_Versus_Three_Dimensional_Images_for_Evaluation_of_Nasolabial_Appearance_in_Patients_With_Unilateral_Cleft_Lip_and_Palate_ L2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004102 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -