Singh Pradeep, Hsung Richard Tai-Chiu, Ajmera Deepal Haresh, Said Noha A, Leung Yiu Yan, McGrath Colman, Gu Min
Division of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Department of Computer Science, Hong Kong Chu Hai College, Hong Kong SAR, China.
BMC Oral Health. 2024 Dec 19;24(1):1517. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-05280-9.
To evaluate the validity and reliability of smartphone-generated three-dimensional (3D) facial images for routine evaluation of the oronasal region of patients with cleft by comparing their accuracy to that of direct anthropometry (DA) and 3dMD.
Eighteen soft-tissue facial landmarks were manually labelled on each of the 17 (9 males and 8 females; mean age 23.3 ± 5.4 years) cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients' faces. Two surface imaging systems, 3dMDface and Bellus3D FaceApp, were used to perform two imaging operations on each labelled face. Subsequently, 32 inter-landmark facial measurements were directly measured on the labelled faces and digitally measured on the 3D facial images. Statistical comparisons were made between smartphone-generated 3D facial images (SGI), DA, and 3dMD measurements.
The SGI measurements were slightly higher than those from DA and 3dMD, but the mean differences between inter-landmark measurements were not statistically significant across all three methods. In terms of clinical acceptability, 16% and 59% of measures showed differences of ≤ 3 mm or ≤ 5º, with good agreement between DA and SGI and 3dMD and SGI, respectively. A small systematic bias of ± 0.2 mm was observed generally among the three methods. Additionally, the mean absolute difference between the DA and SGI methods was the highest for linear measurements (1.31 ± 0.34 mm) and angular measurements (4.11 ± 0.76º).
SGI displayed fair trueness compared to DA and 3dMD. It exhibited high accuracy in the orolabial area and specific central and flat areas within the oronasal region. Notwithstanding this, it has limited clinical applicability for assessing the entire oronasal region of patients with CLP. From a clinical application perspective, SGI should accurately encompass the entire oronasal region for optimal clinical use.
SGI can be considered for macroscopic oronasal analysis or for patient education where accuracy within 3 mm and 5º may not be critical.
通过将智能手机生成的三维(3D)面部图像与直接人体测量法(DA)和3dMD的准确性进行比较,评估其在唇腭裂患者口鼻区域常规评估中的有效性和可靠性。
在17例(9例男性和8例女性;平均年龄23.3±5.4岁)唇腭裂(CLP)患者的面部手动标记18个软组织面部标志点。使用两种表面成像系统,即3dMDface和Bellus3D FaceApp,对每个标记的面部进行两次成像操作。随后,在标记的面部直接测量32个标志点间的面部测量值,并在3D面部图像上进行数字测量。对智能手机生成的3D面部图像(SGI)、DA和3dMD测量值进行统计比较。
SGI测量值略高于DA和3dMD的测量值,但在所有三种方法中,标志点间测量值的平均差异无统计学意义。在临床可接受性方面,16%和59%的测量值显示差异≤3mm或≤5°,DA与SGI以及3dMD与SGI之间分别具有良好的一致性。三种方法之间总体上观察到±0.2mm的小系统偏差。此外,DA和SGI方法之间的平均绝对差异在线性测量(1.31±0.34mm)和角度测量(4.11±0.76°)中最高。
与DA和3dMD相比,SGI显示出一定的真实性。它在口唇部区域以及口鼻区域内特定的中央和平坦区域表现出较高的准确性。尽管如此,它在评估CLP患者的整个口鼻区域方面临床适用性有限。从临床应用角度来看,SGI应准确涵盖整个口鼻区域以实现最佳临床应用。
对于宏观口鼻分析或在3mm和5°以内的准确性可能不关键的患者教育方面,可以考虑使用SGI。