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

Kód výsledku v 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>

Výsledek na webu

<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>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

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

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

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

Popis výsledku anglicky

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.

Druh

J_x - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

CEP obor

FF - ORL, oftalmologie, stomatologie

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2016

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

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

Název periodika

European Journal of Orthodontics

ISSN

0141-5387

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

38

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

5

Strana od-do

197-201

Kód UT WoS článku

000374414300012

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—