Evaluation of the soft tissue treatment simulation module of a computerized cephalometric program

ABSTRACT

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of the treatment simulation module of Quick Ceph Studio (QCS) program to the actual treatment results in Class II Division 1 patients. Design: Retrospective study. Materials and Methods: Twenty-six skeletal Class II patients treated with functional appliances were included. T0 and T1 lateral cephalograms were digitized using QCS. Before applying treatment simulation to the digitized cephalograms, the actual T0-T1 difference was calculated for the SNA, SNB, ANB angles, maxillary incisor inclination, and protrusion and mandibular incisor inclination and protrusion values. Next, using the treatment simulation module, the aforementioned values for the T0 cephalograms were manually entered to match the actual T1 values taking into account the T0-T1 differences. Paired sample t-test were applied to determine the difference between actual and treatment simulation measurements. Results: No significant differences were found for the anteroposterior location of the landmarks. Upper lip, soft tissue A point, soft tissue pogonion, and soft tissue B point measurements showed statistically significant difference between actual and treatment simulation in the vertical plane. Conclusion: Quick Ceph program was reliable in terms of reflecting the sagittal changes that would probably occur with treatment and growth. However, vertical positions of the upper lip, soft tissue pogonion, soft tissue A point, and soft tissue B point were statistically different from actual results.

Key words:

Computerized cephalometry - treatment simulation - soft tissue changes

• REFERENCES

• 1 McNamara Jr JA. Components of class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod 1981; 51: 177-202
• 2 McNamara Jr JA, Peterson Jr JE, Alexander RG. Three-dimensional diagnosis and management of Class II malocclusion in the mixed dentition. Semin Orthod 1996; 2: 114-37
• 3 Tak M, Nagarajappa R, Sharda AJ, Asawa K, Tak A, Jalihal S. et al. Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment needs among 12-15 years old school children of Udaipur, India. Eur J Dent 2013; 7: 45-53
• 4 McNamara Jr JA, Brudon WL. Treatment of class II malocclusion. In: Spivey KB, Skidmore LM. editors Orthodontic and Orthopedic Treatment in the Mixed Dentition. Ann Arbor, Mich: Needham Press; 1993: 95-116
• 5 Graber TM. Functional appliances. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL. editors. Orthodontics: Current Principles and Techniques. St. Louis: Mosby; 2005: 473-520
• 6 Donatsky O, Hillerup S, Bjørn-Jørgensen J, Jacobsen PU. Computerized cephalometric orthognathic surgical simulation, prediction and postoperative evaluation of precision. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992; 21: 199-203
• 7 Loh S, Heng JK, Ward-Booth P, Winchester L, McDonald F. A radiographic analysis of computer prediction in conjunction with orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 30: 259-63
• 8 Kazandjian S, Sameshima GT, Champlin T, Sinclair PM. Accuracy of video imaging for predicting the soft tissue profile after mandibular set-back surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 115: 382-9
• 9 Schultes G, Gaggl A, Kärcher H. Accuracy of cephalometric and video imaging program dentofacial planner plus in orthognathic surgical planning. Comput Aided Surg 1998; 3: 108-14
• 10 Upton PM, Sadowsky PL, Sarver DM, Heaven TJ. Evaluation of video imaging prediction in combined maxillary and mandibular orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112: 656-65
• 11 Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 2009; 41: 1149-60
• 12 Semaan S, Goonewardene MS. Accuracy of a LeFort I maxillary osteotomy. Angle Orthod 2005; 75: 964-73
• 13 Smith JD, Thomas PM, Proffit WR. A comparison of current prediction imaging programs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 125: 527-36
• 14 Sarver DM, Proffit WR, Ackerman JL. Diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL. editors. Orthodontics: Current Principles and Techniques. St. Louis: Mosby; 2000: 3-115
• 15 Sahin-Veske P. Evaluation of the effects of Frankel-II and preorthodontic trainer appliances on skeletal, dental structures and masticatory muscles in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion. Hacettepe University, Institute of Health Sciences, Ph.D. Thesis in Orthodontics; Ankara: 2010
• 16 Lundström A, Lundström F. The Frankfort horizontal as a basis for cephalometric analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 107: 537-40
• 17 Ricketts RM, Schulhof RJ, Bagha L. Orientation-sella-nasion or Frankfort horizontal. Am J Orthod 1976; 69: 648-54
• 18 Koh CH, Chew MT. Predictability of soft tissue profile changes following bimaxillary surgery in skeletal class III Chinese patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62: 1505-9
• 19 Pektas ZO, Kircelli BH, Cilasun U, Uckan S. The accuracy of computer-assisted surgical planning in soft tissue prediction following orthognathic surgery. Int J Med Robot 2007; 3: 64-71
• 20 Sinclair PM, Kilpelainen P, Phillips C, White Jr RP, Rogers L, Sarver DM. The accuracy of video imaging in orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 107: 177-85
• 21 Lu CH, Ko EW, Huang CS. The accuracy of video imaging prediction in soft tissue outcome after bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003; 61: 333-42
• 22 Carter AC, Larson BE, Guenthner TA. Accuracy of video imaging in mandibular surgery. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1996; 11: 289-300
• 23 Gerbo LR, Poulton DR, Covell DA, Russell CA. A comparison of a computer-based orthognathic surgery prediction system to postsurgical results. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1997; 12: 55-63
• 24 Hing NR. The accuracy of computer generated prediction tracings. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989; 18: 148-51