Treatment outcome in orthognathic surgery-A prospective randomized blinded case-controlled comparison of planning accuracy in computer-assisted two- and three-dimensional planning techniques (part II)
Bengtsson, Martin LU
; Wall, Gert
; Greiff, Lennart
LU
and Rasmusson, Lars
(2017)
In Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery
45(9).
p.1419-1424
- Abstract
Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) prediction methods. The hypothesis was that a 3D technique would give a more accurate outcome of the postoperative result. Material and methods: Patients with severe class III occlusion were included and planed with both a 2D and 3D prediction technique. They were there after randomly subdivided into a control (2D) and test (3D) group and treated according to the technique randomized for. Cephalometric measurements from 2D and 3D predictions were compared with 12-month follow-up respectively. Together with an analysis of tracing error, placements of 3580 cephalometric markers, 2460 measurements, 680 intra-individual... (More)
Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) prediction methods. The hypothesis was that a 3D technique would give a more accurate outcome of the postoperative result. Material and methods: Patients with severe class III occlusion were included and planed with both a 2D and 3D prediction technique. They were there after randomly subdivided into a control (2D) and test (3D) group and treated according to the technique randomized for. Cephalometric measurements from 2D and 3D predictions were compared with 12-month follow-up respectively. Together with an analysis of tracing error, placements of 3580 cephalometric markers, 2460 measurements, 680 intra-individual analyses and 1200 preop/postop comparisons were performed in 57 individuals. Results: Statistically significant differences for accuracy between the two groups were seen for 11/NSL-112/NSL2 and for A-A2 (p < 0.05). Both groups showed a high level of accuracy for SNA and SNB. The test group also showed a relatively high level of accuracy for 11/NSL and for the A-point. No prediction method achieves a perfect accuracy. As expected from this, measuring accuracy within each group showed statistically significant difference for all markers and cephalometric measurements (p < 0.001). Mandibular markers showed greater differences than maxillary markers. Conclusion: The present study indicates an equal high accuracy in predicting facial outcome for both studied techniques. However, in patients with asymmetry the three-dimensional technique has an obvious advantage.
(Less)
- author
- Bengtsson, Martin
LU
; Wall, Gert
; Greiff, Lennart
LU
and Rasmusson, Lars
- publishing date
- 2017
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Cephalometry, Computer-aided surgical simulation, Dentofacial deformity, Orthognathic surgery, Randomized controlled trial, Virtual surgical planning
- in
- Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery
- volume
- 45
- issue
- 9
- pages
- 1419 - 1424
- publisher
- Elsevier
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85027106230
- pmid:28800842
- ISSN
- 1010-5182
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.07.001
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- id
- d5f11bc5-5f7e-4ee6-9255-477c68f7852c
- date added to LUP
- 2017-09-04 16:26:59
- date last changed
- 2024-06-11 01:39:46
@article{d5f11bc5-5f7e-4ee6-9255-477c68f7852c,
abstract = {{<p>Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) prediction methods. The hypothesis was that a 3D technique would give a more accurate outcome of the postoperative result. Material and methods: Patients with severe class III occlusion were included and planed with both a 2D and 3D prediction technique. They were there after randomly subdivided into a control (2D) and test (3D) group and treated according to the technique randomized for. Cephalometric measurements from 2D and 3D predictions were compared with 12-month follow-up respectively. Together with an analysis of tracing error, placements of 3580 cephalometric markers, 2460 measurements, 680 intra-individual analyses and 1200 preop/postop comparisons were performed in 57 individuals. Results: Statistically significant differences for accuracy between the two groups were seen for 11/NSL-112/NSL2 and for A-A2 (p < 0.05). Both groups showed a high level of accuracy for SNA and SNB. The test group also showed a relatively high level of accuracy for 11/NSL and for the A-point. No prediction method achieves a perfect accuracy. As expected from this, measuring accuracy within each group showed statistically significant difference for all markers and cephalometric measurements (p < 0.001). Mandibular markers showed greater differences than maxillary markers. Conclusion: The present study indicates an equal high accuracy in predicting facial outcome for both studied techniques. However, in patients with asymmetry the three-dimensional technique has an obvious advantage.</p>}},
author = {{Bengtsson, Martin and Wall, Gert and Greiff, Lennart and Rasmusson, Lars}},
issn = {{1010-5182}},
keywords = {{Cephalometry; Computer-aided surgical simulation; Dentofacial deformity; Orthognathic surgery; Randomized controlled trial; Virtual surgical planning}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{9}},
pages = {{1419--1424}},
publisher = {{Elsevier}},
series = {{Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery}},
title = {{Treatment outcome in orthognathic surgery-A prospective randomized blinded case-controlled comparison of planning accuracy in computer-assisted two- and three-dimensional planning techniques (part II)}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2017.07.001}},
doi = {{10.1016/j.jcms.2017.07.001}},
volume = {{45}},
year = {{2017}},
}