The accuracy and reliability of different midsagittal planes in the symmetry assessment using cone-beam computed tomography

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q1 ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY Clinical Anatomy Pub Date : 2024-01-08 DOI:10.1002/ca.24133
Shaoyang Yu, Yao Zheng, Lirong Dong, Wenli Huang, Haoting Wu, Qiang Zhang, Xiao Yan, Wei Wu, Tao Lv, Xiao Yuan
{"title":"The accuracy and reliability of different midsagittal planes in the symmetry assessment using cone-beam computed tomography","authors":"Shaoyang Yu,&nbsp;Yao Zheng,&nbsp;Lirong Dong,&nbsp;Wenli Huang,&nbsp;Haoting Wu,&nbsp;Qiang Zhang,&nbsp;Xiao Yan,&nbsp;Wei Wu,&nbsp;Tao Lv,&nbsp;Xiao Yuan","doi":"10.1002/ca.24133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Symmetry is an essential component of esthetic assessment. Accurate assessment of facial symmetry is critical to the treatment plan of orthognathic surgery and orthodontic treatment. However, there is no internationally accepted midsagittal plane (MSP) for orthodontists and orthognathic surgeons. The purpose of this study was to explore a clinically friendly MSP, which is more accurate and reliable than what is commonly used in symmetry assessment. Forty patients with symmetric craniofacial structures were analyzed on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. The CBCT data were exported to the Simplant Pro software to build four reference planes that were constructed by nasion (N), basion (Ba), sella (S), odontoid (Dent), or incisive foramen (IF). A total of 31 landmarks were located to determine which reference plane is the most optimal MSP by comparing the asymmetry index (AI). The mean value of AI showed a significant difference (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05) among four reference planes. Also, the mean value of AI for all landmarks showed that Plane 2 (consisting of N, Ba, and IF) and Plane 4 (consisting of N, IF, and Dent) were more accurate and stable. In conclusion, the MSP consisting of N, Dent, and IF shows more accuracy and reliability than the other planes. Further, it is more clinically friendly because of its significant advantage in landmarking.</p>","PeriodicalId":50687,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Anatomy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Anatomy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ca.24133","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Symmetry is an essential component of esthetic assessment. Accurate assessment of facial symmetry is critical to the treatment plan of orthognathic surgery and orthodontic treatment. However, there is no internationally accepted midsagittal plane (MSP) for orthodontists and orthognathic surgeons. The purpose of this study was to explore a clinically friendly MSP, which is more accurate and reliable than what is commonly used in symmetry assessment. Forty patients with symmetric craniofacial structures were analyzed on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. The CBCT data were exported to the Simplant Pro software to build four reference planes that were constructed by nasion (N), basion (Ba), sella (S), odontoid (Dent), or incisive foramen (IF). A total of 31 landmarks were located to determine which reference plane is the most optimal MSP by comparing the asymmetry index (AI). The mean value of AI showed a significant difference (p < 0.05) among four reference planes. Also, the mean value of AI for all landmarks showed that Plane 2 (consisting of N, Ba, and IF) and Plane 4 (consisting of N, IF, and Dent) were more accurate and stable. In conclusion, the MSP consisting of N, Dent, and IF shows more accuracy and reliability than the other planes. Further, it is more clinically friendly because of its significant advantage in landmarking.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用锥形束计算机断层扫描评估不同中矢状面对称性的准确性和可靠性。
对称是美学评估的重要组成部分。准确评估面部对称性对于正颌外科手术和正畸治疗的治疗方案至关重要。然而,目前还没有国际公认的正畸医生和正颌外科医生用的中矢状面(MSP)。本研究的目的是探索一种对临床友好的 MSP,它比对称性评估中常用的 MSP 更准确、更可靠。研究人员对 40 名颅面结构对称的患者进行了锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)分析。CBCT 数据被导出到 Simplant Pro 软件中,以建立四个参考平面,分别由 nasion (N)、basion (Ba)、sela (S)、odontoid (Dent) 或 incisive foramen (IF) 构建。共定位了 31 个地标,通过比较不对称指数(AI)来确定哪个参考平面是最理想的 MSP。AI 的平均值显示出显著差异(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Anatomy
Clinical Anatomy 医学-解剖学与形态学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
154
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Anatomy is the Official Journal of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists and the British Association of Clinical Anatomists. The goal of Clinical Anatomy is to provide a medium for the exchange of current information between anatomists and clinicians. This journal embraces anatomy in all its aspects as applied to medical practice. Furthermore, the journal assists physicians and other health care providers in keeping abreast of new methodologies for patient management and informs educators of new developments in clinical anatomy and teaching techniques. Clinical Anatomy publishes original and review articles of scientific, clinical, and educational interest. Papers covering the application of anatomic principles to the solution of clinical problems and/or the application of clinical observations to expand anatomic knowledge are welcomed.
期刊最新文献
3D segmentation and quantitative analysis of age-related changes in the Hoffa fat pad using MRI. Infectious meningitis. Why are the leptomeninges preferentially involved? Electron microscopic insights. Comparison of ultrasound assisted and intraoperative diameter measurement in acute appendicitis. Issue Information Enhancing medical anatomy education with the integration of virtual reality into traditional lab settings.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1