Evaluation of the Reliability of Facial Models Digitalized with Different Imaging Methods in Cleft Lip and Palate.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q2 Dentistry Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal Pub Date : 2025-02-02 DOI:10.1177/10556656251314264
Hüseyin Budak, Hanife Nuray Yilmaz
{"title":"Evaluation of the Reliability of Facial Models Digitalized with Different Imaging Methods in Cleft Lip and Palate.","authors":"Hüseyin Budak, Hanife Nuray Yilmaz","doi":"10.1177/10556656251314264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the reliability of different digitizing methods not only among themselves but also with direct measurements from facial plaster models of unoperated cleft babies.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Single-center retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The study consisted facial models of babies with unilateral (UCLP, n = 65) and bilateral (BCLP, n = 65) cleft lip and palate from the archives of the Department of Orthodontics, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. Those models were digitized using Medit i600, iTero Element 2 (Align Technology), and E3 3Shape scanning devices. A digital caliper with a 0.03 precision (INSIZE Digital Caliper) was used for manual measurements on plaster models. 3Shape Ortho Analyzer software was used for digital measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All scanning methods were reliable and compatible with a rate of 90% or more compared to manual measurements. The E3 3Shape device showed the lowest deviations (UCLP, between 0.04 and 0.11 mm; BCLP, between 0.04 and 0.25 mm) from manual measurements. In the UCLP group, Medit i600 presented the highest deviation (0.15-0.58 mm) whereas Itero Element 2 showed the highest deviation in the BCLP group (0.16-0.46 mm). Although there were statistically significant differences in the deviations of digital measurements, the values were still within clinically acceptable limits.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intraoral scanners were less reliable in topographic measurements, especially in cases with increased depth. Although the highest compatible results were found with E3 3Shape model scanner, iTero Element 2 and Medit i600 were promising and advisable for digitizing and archiving the plaster models of babies with cleft lip and palate.</p>","PeriodicalId":49220,"journal":{"name":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","volume":" ","pages":"10556656251314264"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656251314264","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the reliability of different digitizing methods not only among themselves but also with direct measurements from facial plaster models of unoperated cleft babies.

Design: Single-center retrospective study.

Setting: The study consisted facial models of babies with unilateral (UCLP, n = 65) and bilateral (BCLP, n = 65) cleft lip and palate from the archives of the Department of Orthodontics, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. Those models were digitized using Medit i600, iTero Element 2 (Align Technology), and E3 3Shape scanning devices. A digital caliper with a 0.03 precision (INSIZE Digital Caliper) was used for manual measurements on plaster models. 3Shape Ortho Analyzer software was used for digital measurements.

Results: All scanning methods were reliable and compatible with a rate of 90% or more compared to manual measurements. The E3 3Shape device showed the lowest deviations (UCLP, between 0.04 and 0.11 mm; BCLP, between 0.04 and 0.25 mm) from manual measurements. In the UCLP group, Medit i600 presented the highest deviation (0.15-0.58 mm) whereas Itero Element 2 showed the highest deviation in the BCLP group (0.16-0.46 mm). Although there were statistically significant differences in the deviations of digital measurements, the values were still within clinically acceptable limits.

Conclusion: Intraoral scanners were less reliable in topographic measurements, especially in cases with increased depth. Although the highest compatible results were found with E3 3Shape model scanner, iTero Element 2 and Medit i600 were promising and advisable for digitizing and archiving the plaster models of babies with cleft lip and palate.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
36.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal (CPCJ) is the premiere peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, international journal dedicated to current research on etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in all areas pertaining to craniofacial anomalies. CPCJ reports on basic science and clinical research aimed at better elucidating the pathogenesis, pathology, and optimal methods of treatment of cleft and craniofacial anomalies. The journal strives to foster communication and cooperation among professionals from all specialties.
期刊最新文献
ERF-Related Craniosynostosis in a Patient With Hypochondroplasia: A Case Report. Evaluation of Family-Centered Care by Parents and Nurses of Children With Congenital Microtia. The Use of Fixed and Removable Bite Blocks in Bilateral Buccinator Flap Surgery for Velopharyngeal Insufficiency. Zygomatic Implant Rehabilitation in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate: A Narrative Review of Clinical Outcomes and Indication Criteria Validation. Evaluation of Maxillary Sinus Pathologies in Children and Adolescents with Cleft Lip and Palate Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography: A Retrospective Study.
×
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