Imaging Science in Dentistry

  • 제52권1호
  • /
  • Pages.43-51
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2233-7822(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-7830(eISSN)
대한영상치의학회 (Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Vectra M3 3-dimensional digital stereophotogrammetry system: A reliable technique for detecting chin asymmetry

  • Hansson, Stina (Department of Orthodontics, Postgraduate Dental Education Center and School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Orebro University) ;
  • Ostlund, Emil (Department of Orthodontics, Postgraduate Dental Education Center and School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Orebro University) ;
  • Bazargani, Farhan (Department of Orthodontics, Postgraduate Dental Education Center and School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Orebro University)
  • 투고 : 2021.07.02
  • 심사 : 2021.10.11
  • 발행 : 2022.03.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the Vectra M3 (3D Imaging System; Canfield Scientific, Parsippany, NJ, USA) in detecting chin asymmetry, and to assess whether the automatic markerless tracking function is reliable compared to manually plotting landmarks. Materials and Methods: Twenty subjects (18 females and 2 males) with a mean age of 42.5±10.5 years were included. Three-dimensional image acquisition was carried out on all subjects with simulated chin deviation in 4 stages (1-4 mm). The images were analyzed by 2 independent observers through manually plotting landmarks and by Vectra software auto-tracking mode. Repeated-measures analysis of variance and the Tukey post-hoc test were performed to evaluate the differences in mean measurements between the 2 operators and the software for measuring chin deviation in 4 stages. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to estimate the intra- and inter-examiner reliability. Results: No significant difference was found between the accuracy of manually plotting landmarks between observers 1 and 2 and the auto-tracking mode (P=0.783 and P=0.999, respectively). The mean difference in detecting the degree of deviation according to the stage was <0.5 mm for all landmarks. Conclusion: The auto-tracking mode could be considered as reliable as manually plotted landmarks in detecting small chin deviations with the Vectra® M3. The effect on the soft tissue when constructing a known dental movement yielded a small overestimation of the soft tissue movement compared to the dental movement (mean value<0.5 mm), which can be considered clinically non-significant.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Heike CL, Upson K, Stuhaug E, Weinberg SM. 3D digital stereophotogrammetry: a practical guide to facial image acquisition. Head Face Med 2010; 6: 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-6-18
  2. Capitan L, Simon D, Capitan-Canadas F. Facial feminization surgery and facial gender confirmation surgery. In: Ferrando C. Comprehensive care of the transgender patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020. p. 54-72.
  3. Farkas LG. Accuracy of anthropometric measurements: past, present, and future. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1996; 33: 10-8. https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_1996_033_0010_aoampp_2.3.co_2
  4. Brons S, Meulstee JW, Loonen TG, Nada RM, Kuijpers MA, Bronkhorst EM, et al. Three-dimensional facial development of children with unilateral cleft lip and palate during the first year of life in comparison with normative average faces. PeerJ 2019; 7: e7302. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7302
  5. Gibelli D, Pucciarelli V, Cappella A, Dolci C, Sforza C. Are portable stereophotogrammetric devices reliable in facial imaging? A validation study of Vectra H1 device. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 76: 1772-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2018.01.021
  6. Verhulst A, Hol M, Vreeken R, Becking A, Ulrich D, Maal T. Three-dimensional imaging of the face: a comparison between three different imaging modalities. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38: 579-85. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx227
  7. Hajeer MY, Ayoub AF, Millett DT. Three-dimensional assessment of facial soft-tissue asymmetry before and after orthognathic surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 42: 396-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2004.05.006
  8. Silva AM, Magri LV, Osborne PR, Trivelatto AE, Sverzut CE, Silva MA. Three-dimensional nasal alterations in Le Fort I advancement: linear measurements, angles, nasal indices, and volume differences. J Craniofac Surg 2019; 30: 1125-30. https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000005103
  9. van Loon B, van Heerbeek N, Bierenbroodspot F, Verhamme L, Xi T, de Koning MJ, et al. Three-dimensional changes in nose and upper lip volume after orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 44: 83-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.08.001
  10. Lum V, Goonewardene MS, Mian A, Eastwood P. Three-dimensional assessment of facial asymmetry using dense correspondence, symmetry, and midline analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020; 158: 134-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.12.014
  11. Severt TR, Proffit WR. The prevalence of facial asymmetry in the dentofacial deformities population at the University of North Carolina. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1997; 12: 171-6.
  12. Meyer-Marcotty P, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Bareis U, Hartmann J, Kochel J. Three-dimensional perception of facial asymmetry. Eur J Orthod 2011; 33: 647-53. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq146
  13. Wang TT, Wessels L, Hussain G, Merten S. Discriminative thresholds in facial asymmetry: a review of the literature. Aesthet Surg J 2017; 37: 375-85. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjw271
  14. Langberg BJ, Arai K, Miner RM. Transverse skeletal and dental asymmetry in adults with unilateral lingual posterior crossbite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 127: 6-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.10.044
  15. Choi HW, Kim B, Kim JY, Huh JK, Park KH. Three-dimensional computed tomography evaluation of craniofacial characteristics according to lateral deviation of chin. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 41: 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-019-0241-1
  16. Hong C, Choi K, Kachroo Y, Kwon T, Nguyen A, McComb R, et al. Evaluation of the 3dMDface system as a tool for soft tissue analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res 2017; 20 Suppl 1: 119-24.
  17. Naini FB, Akram S, Kepinska J, Garagiola U, McDonald F, Wertheim D. Validation of a new three-dimensional imaging system using comparative craniofacial anthropometry. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 39: 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-017-0123-3
  18. Knoops PG, Beaumont CA, Borghi A, Rodriguez-Florez N, Breakey RW, Rodgers W, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional scanner systems for craniomaxillofacial imaging. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017; 70: 441-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2016.12.015
  19. Guo Y, Schaub F, Mor JM, Jia R, Koch KR, Heindl LM. A simple standardized three-dimensional anthropometry for the periocular region in a European population. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145: 514e-23e. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000006555
  20. Hyer JN, Murta F, Juniat VA, Ezra DG. Validating three-dimensional imaging for volumetric assessment of periorbital soft tissue. Orbit 2021; 40: 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01676830.2020.1711780
  21. Mattox AR, Behshad R, Sepe DJ, Armbrecht ES, Maher IA. Three-dimensional modeling and comparison of nasal flap designs. Arch Dermatol Res 2020; 312: 575-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-020-02039-4
  22. Liu J, Guo Y, Arakelyan M, Rokohl AC, Heindl LM. Accuracy of areal measurement in the periocular region using stereophotogrammetry. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021; 79: 1106.e1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2020.12.015
  23. Ozsoy U, Demirel BM, Yildirim FB, Tosun O, Sarikcioglu L. Method selection in craniofacial measurements: advantages and disadvantages of 3D digitization method. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2009; 37: 285-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2008.12.005
  24. Andrade LM, Rodrigues da Silva AM, Magri LV, Rodrigues da Silva MA. Repeatability study of angular and linear measurements on facial morphology analysis by means of stereophotogrammetry. J Craniofac Surg 2017; 28: 1107-11. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000003554
  25. Baksi S, Freezer S, Matsumoto T, Dreyer C. Accuracy of an automated method of 3D soft tissue landmark detection. Eur J Orthod (in press).
  26. Nord F, Ferjencik R, Seifert B, Lanzer M, Gander T, Matthews F, et al. The 3dMD photogrammetric photo system in cranio-maxillofacial surgery: validation of interexaminer variations and perceptions. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43: 1798-803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.08.017
  27. de Menezes M, Rosati R, Ferrario VF, Sforza C. Accuracy and reproducibility of a 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetric imaging system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68: 2129-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.09.036
  28. Thiesen G, Kim KB. Criteria for determining facial asymmetries. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 150: 910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.08.018
  29. Choi KY. Analysis of facial asymmetry. Arch Craniofac Surg 2015; 16: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.7181/acfs.2015.16.1.1
  30. Silva BP, Jimenez-Castellanos E, Martinez-de-Fuentes R, Greenberg JR, Chu S. Laypersons' perception of facial and dental asymmetries. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013; 33: e162-71. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.1618