• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Seminars in orthodontics >Evaluating the accuracy of facial models obtained from volume wrapping: 2D images on CBCT versus 3D on CBCT
【24h】

Evaluating the accuracy of facial models obtained from volume wrapping: 2D images on CBCT versus 3D on CBCT

机译：评估从卷包装中获得的面部模型的准确性：CBCT上CBCT与3D上的2D图像

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Purpose: To test for difference in accuracy of 3D facial integument measurements of three indirect facial measurement techniques compared to measuring integument facial features directly. Materials & Methods: Four measurement methods were used to measure 25 patients (15 females and 10 males): 1) direct anthropometric facial (direct), 2) volume wrapping 2D images on CBCT (2D wrap), 3) volume wrapping 3D facial scan using Artec Eva on CBCT (3D wrap), and 4) direct 3D face scan (3D scan). Statistical differences were determined at the 99% probability level and clinical significance was 0.5 mm. Results: Direct technique measurements were significantly smaller than the other three techniques in 7 of 26 (26.8%) measurements. Differences between 3 of 7 measurements exceeded 0.5 mm and were deemed clinically significant, i.e. upper face height (N-Sto), lower face height (Sn-Gn) and nasal tip projection (Sn-Prn). The remaining 23 of 26 direct measurements could be substituted by 2D wrap, 3D wrap or 3D scan measurement techniques. Compared to the direct technique, 2D volume wrap on CBCT values were closer than the values obtained from the 3D volume wrap and 3D CBCT techniques. Conclusions: Compared to the "gold standard" direct measurements, the other three techniques in 23 of 26 face and ear measurements (88.5%) could be substituted one for the other, and demonstrated a fairly high level of precision. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
机译：目的：与直接测量Integument面部特征相比，测试三个间接面部测量技术的3D面部整数测量精度差异。材料和方法：四种测量方法用于测量25名患者（15名女性和10名男性）：1）直接人体测量面部（直接），2）CBCT（2D包装），3）体积包装3D面部扫描使用ARTEC EVA对CBCT（3D包装）和4）直接3D面部扫描（3D扫描）。在99％的概率水平确定统计差异，临床意义是＆ 0.5mm。结果：直接技术测量明显小于其他三种技术，共26例（26.8％）测量。 7个测量中的3个差异超过0.5mm，并且被视为临床显着，即上面高度（N-STO），下面高度（SN-GN）和鼻尖突起（SN-PRN）。剩下的26个直接测量可以由2D包装，3D包装或3D扫描测量技术代替。与直接技术相比，CBCT值上的2D卷包装比从3D卷包装和3D CBCT技术获得的值更接近。结论：与“黄金标准”直接测量相比，其他23个面部和耳测量（88.5％）中的其他三种技术可以为另一个替代，并证明了相当高的精度。 （c）2018年Elsevier Inc.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号