Cargando…

Facial Flatness Indices: A Comparison of Two Methods of Assessment

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to evaluate and compare facial flatness indices calculated from the trigonometric formula as opposed to those generated from the direct measurements on three-dimensional radiographs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 322 cone-beam computed tomography radiogr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chalala, Chimène, Saadeh, Maria, Ayoub, Fouad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Scientific Scholar 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7655991/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33194310
http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/JCIS_66_2020
_version_ 1783608284019687424
author Chalala, Chimène
Saadeh, Maria
Ayoub, Fouad
author_facet Chalala, Chimène
Saadeh, Maria
Ayoub, Fouad
author_sort Chalala, Chimène
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to evaluate and compare facial flatness indices calculated from the trigonometric formula as opposed to those generated from the direct measurements on three-dimensional radiographs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 322 cone-beam computed tomography radiographs were digitized and three facial indices (frontal, simotic, and zygomaxillary) were assessed in two different methods and compared between different groups. RESULTS: There was a discrepancy between facial flatness indices generated from the two different approaches. The highest difference was seen in the findings of the simotic index and the lowest for the zygomaxillary index. No statistically significant difference was displayed in the three formula-generated flatness indices between males and females and between growing and non-growing subjects (P > 0.05). The zygomaxillary index was the only measurement revealing no statistically significant difference in Class III sagittal malocclusions (t = −0.5 P = 0.621). The orthodontic application would yield to the same interpretations for both ways of indices calculation. CONCLUSION: The validity of the trigonometric formula used to appraise facial flatness indices might be questionable. The zygomaxillary index could be more clinically considered compared to the frontal and simotic indices.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7655991
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Scientific Scholar
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76559912020-11-13 Facial Flatness Indices: A Comparison of Two Methods of Assessment Chalala, Chimène Saadeh, Maria Ayoub, Fouad J Clin Imaging Sci Original Research OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to evaluate and compare facial flatness indices calculated from the trigonometric formula as opposed to those generated from the direct measurements on three-dimensional radiographs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 322 cone-beam computed tomography radiographs were digitized and three facial indices (frontal, simotic, and zygomaxillary) were assessed in two different methods and compared between different groups. RESULTS: There was a discrepancy between facial flatness indices generated from the two different approaches. The highest difference was seen in the findings of the simotic index and the lowest for the zygomaxillary index. No statistically significant difference was displayed in the three formula-generated flatness indices between males and females and between growing and non-growing subjects (P > 0.05). The zygomaxillary index was the only measurement revealing no statistically significant difference in Class III sagittal malocclusions (t = −0.5 P = 0.621). The orthodontic application would yield to the same interpretations for both ways of indices calculation. CONCLUSION: The validity of the trigonometric formula used to appraise facial flatness indices might be questionable. The zygomaxillary index could be more clinically considered compared to the frontal and simotic indices. Scientific Scholar 2020-10-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7655991/ /pubmed/33194310 http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/JCIS_66_2020 Text en © 2020 Published by Scientific Scholar on behalf of Journal of Clinical Imaging Science https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Research
Chalala, Chimène
Saadeh, Maria
Ayoub, Fouad
Facial Flatness Indices: A Comparison of Two Methods of Assessment
title Facial Flatness Indices: A Comparison of Two Methods of Assessment
title_full Facial Flatness Indices: A Comparison of Two Methods of Assessment
title_fullStr Facial Flatness Indices: A Comparison of Two Methods of Assessment
title_full_unstemmed Facial Flatness Indices: A Comparison of Two Methods of Assessment
title_short Facial Flatness Indices: A Comparison of Two Methods of Assessment
title_sort facial flatness indices: a comparison of two methods of assessment
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7655991/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33194310
http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/JCIS_66_2020
work_keys_str_mv AT chalalachimene facialflatnessindicesacomparisonoftwomethodsofassessment
AT saadehmaria facialflatnessindicesacomparisonoftwomethodsofassessment
AT ayoubfouad facialflatnessindicesacomparisonoftwomethodsofassessment