Rating nasolabial appearance on three-dimensional images in cleft lip and palate: a comparison with standard photographs.

Result code in IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61989592%3A15110%2F16%3A33162157" target="_blank" >RIV/61989592:15110/16:33162157 - isvavai.cz</a>

Result on the web

<a href="https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ejo/cjv024" target="_blank" >https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ejo/cjv024</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv024" target="_blank" >10.1093/ejo/cjv024</a>

Result language

angličtina

Original language name

Rating nasolabial appearance on three-dimensional images in cleft lip and palate: a comparison with standard photographs.

Original language description

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.

Czech name

—

Czech description

—

Type

J_x - Unclassified - Peer-reviewed scientific article (Jimp, Jsc and Jost)

CEP classification

FF - ENT (ie. ear, nose, throat), ophthalmology, dentistry

OECD FORD branch

—

Project

—

Continuities

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Publication year

2016

Confidentiality

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Name of the periodical

European Journal of Orthodontics

ISSN

0141-5387

e-ISSN

—

Volume of the periodical

38

Issue of the periodical within the volume

2

Country of publishing house

GB - UNITED KINGDOM

Number of pages

5

Pages from-to

197-201

UT code for WoS article

000374414300012

EID of the result in the Scopus database

—