Accuracy of Digital Imaging Software to Predict Soft Tissue Changes During Orthodontic Treatment

Overview

Journal J Imaging

Publisher MDPI

Specialty Radiology

Date 2024 Jun 26

PMID 38921611

Authors

Theerasak Nakornnoi

Pannapat Chanmanee

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the Digital Imaging software in the prediction of soft tissue changes following three types of orthodontic interventions: non-extraction, extraction, and orthognathic surgery treatments. Ninety-six patients were randomly selected from the records of three orthodontic interventions (32 subjects per group): (1) non-extraction, (2) extraction, and (3) orthodontic treatment combined with orthognathic surgery. The cephalometric analysis of soft tissue changes in both the actual post-treatment and the predicted treatment was performed using Dolphin Imaging software version 11.9. A paired -test was utilized to assess the statistically significant differences between the predicted and actual treatment outcomes of the parameters ( < 0.05). In the non-extraction group, prediction errors were exhibited only in the lower lip parameters. In the extraction group, prediction errors were observed in both the upper and lower lip parameters. In the orthognathic surgery group, prediction errors were identified in chin thickness, facial contour angle, and upper and lower lip parameters ( < 0.05). Digital Imaging software exhibited inaccurate soft tissue prediction of 0.3-1.0 mm in some parameters of all treatment groups, which should be considered regarding the application of Dolphin Imaging software in orthodontic treatment planning.

References

Kocadereli I . Changes in soft tissue profile after orthodontic treatment with and without extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122(1):67-72. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.125235. View

Soheilifar S, Soheilifar S, Afrasiabi Z, Soheilifar S, Tapak L, Naghdi N . Prediction accuracy of Dolphin software for soft-tissue profile in Class I patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment. J World Fed Orthod. 2021; 11(1):29-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2021.10.001. View

Maetevorakul S, Viteporn S . Factors influencing soft tissue profile changes following orthodontic treatment in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Prog Orthod. 2016; 17:13. PMC: 4852168. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-016-0125-1. View

Pektas Z, Kircelli B, 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. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.127. View

Oliver B . The influence of lip thickness and strain on upper lip response to incisor retraction. Am J Orthod. 1982; 82(2):141-9. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90492-4. View

Jacobson R, Sarver D . The predictability of maxillary repositioning in LeFort I orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122(2):142-54. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.125576. View

McNamara Jr J . A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod. 1984; 86(6):449-69. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9416(84)90352-x. View

de Lourdes Sa de Lira A, Leal de Moura W, de Barros Vieira J, Nojima M, Issamu Nojima L . Surgical prediction of skeletal and soft tissue changes in Class III treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 70(4):e290-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.01.001. View

Sundareswaran S, Ramakrishnan R . The Facial Aesthetic index: An additional tool for assessing treatment need. J Orthod Sci. 2016; 5(2):57-63. PMC: 4830139. DOI: 10.4103/2278-0203.179409. View

10.

Moon S, Mohamed A, He Y, Dong W, Yaosen C, Yang Y . Extraction vs. Nonextraction on Soft-Tissue Profile Change in Patients with Malocclusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2021; 2021:7751516. PMC: 8476252. DOI: 10.1155/2021/7751516. View

11.

Stella J, Streater M, EPKER B, Sinn D . Predictability of upper lip soft tissue changes with maxillary advancement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1989; 47(7):697-703. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-2391(89)80008-4. View

12.

Ahmad Akhoundi M, Shirani G, Arshad M, Heidar H, Sodagar A . Comparison of an imaging software and manual prediction of soft tissue changes after orthognathic surgery. J Dent (Tehran). 2012; 9(3):178-87. PMC: 3484821. View

13.

Power G, Breckon J, Sherriff M, McDonald F . Dolphin Imaging Software: an analysis of the accuracy of cephalometric digitization and orthognathic prediction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005; 34(6):619-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2005.04.003. View

14.

Caplan M, Shivapuja P . The effect of premolar extractions on the soft-tissue profile in adult African American females. Angle Orthod. 1997; 67(2):129-36. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1997)067<0129:TEOPEO>2.3.CO;2. View

15.

Shirvani A, Sadeghian S, Abbasi S . Prediction of lip response to orthodontic treatment using a multivariable regression model. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2016; 13(1):38-45. PMC: 4770468. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.174697. View

16.

Yogosawa F . Predicting soft tissue profile changes concurrent with orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 1990; 60(3):199-206. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1990)060<0199:PSTPCC>2.0.CO;2. View

17.

Tng T, Chan T, Hagg U, Cooke M . Validity of cephalometric landmarks. An experimental study on human skulls. Eur J Orthod. 1994; 16(2):110-20. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/16.2.110. View

18.

Prabhakar R, Rajakumar P, Karthikeyan M, Saravanan R, Vikram N, Reddy A . A hard tissue cephalometric comparative study between hand tracing and computerized tracing. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2014; 6(Suppl 1):S101-6. PMC: 4157243. DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.137401. View

19.

Harvold E, Vargervik K . Morphogenetic response to activator treatment. Am J Orthod. 1971; 60(5):478-90. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(71)90114-x. View

20.

Soheilifar S, Soheilifar S, Ataei H, Mollabashi V, Amini P, Bakhshaei A . Extraction versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment: Soft tissue profile changes in borderline class I patients. Dent Med Probl. 2020; 57(3):275-283. DOI: 10.17219/dmp/119102. View