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

Stebel, Adam; Desmedt, Dries; Bronkhorst, Ewald; Kuijpers, Mette A; Fudalej, Piotr (2016). Rating nasolabial appearance on three-dimensional images in cleft lip and palate: a comparison with standard photographs. European journal of orthodontics, 38(2), pp. 197-201. Oxford University Press 10.1093/ejo/cjv024

[img]
Preview
Text
Rating nasolabial appearance on three-dimensional images in cleft lip and palate a comparison with standard photographs .pdf - Published Version
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (918kB) | Preview

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.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine > Department of Orthodontics

UniBE Contributor:

Fudalej, Piotr

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

0141-5387

Publisher:

Oxford University Press

Language:

English

Submitter:

Eveline Carmen Schuler

Date Deposited:

19 Apr 2017 08:21

Last Modified:

01 May 2019 02:30

Publisher DOI:

10.1093/ejo/cjv024

PubMed ID:

25900054

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.93973

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/93973

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback