Objective: To examine and compare the maxillofacial characteristics affecting chin deviation threedimensionally in facial asymmetry patients with mandibular retrusion and mandibular prognathism. Materials and Methods: Maxillofacial computed tomography (CT) scan data were obtained from 48 orthognathic surgery patients (24 cases of mandibular retrusion and 24 cases of mandibular prognathism) with facial asymmetry. Although chin deviation was assessed on the basis of the ANS-to-menton line on frontal cephalograms, its contributing factors were evaluated on threedimensional CT images. Maxillary height, ramus length, frontal ramal inclination, lateral ramal inclination, mandibular body length, and body height were defined on each side, and right-left differences were calculated and analyzed. Results: In an assessment of chin deviation, subjects in this study showed predominantly left side deviation regardless of the group, and the degree of menton deviation did not reveal significant differences between groups. In a comparison of right-left differences in contributing factors, all values were noted to be greater in the retrusion group, except for body height, which showed no difference between chin-deviated and contralateral sides. In particular, ramus length presented a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion: Based on the same degree of chin deviation in mandibular prognathism and retrusion in this study, results of right-left differences in contributing factors indicate that chin deviations are expressed easily in mandibular prognathism, whereas they occur only with significant right-left differences in relevant maxillofacial structures in individuals with mandibular retrusion. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:988-993.)

Objective To compare the accuracy of complete-arch scans and quadrant scans obtained using a direct chairside intraoral scanner. Material and methods Intraoral scans were obtained from 20 adults without missing teeth except for the third molar. Maxillary and mandibular complete-arch scans were carried out, and 4 quadrant scans for each arch were performed to obtain right posterior, right anterior, left anterior, and left posterior quadrant scans. Complete-arch scans and quadrant scans were compared with corresponding model scans using best-fit surface-based registration. Shell/shell deviations were computed for complete-arch scans and quadrant scans and compared between the complete-arch scans and each quadrant scans. In addition, shell/shell deviations were calculated also for each individual tooth in complete-arch scans to evaluate factors which influence the accuracy of intraoral scans. Results Complete-arch scans showed relatively greater errors (0.09 ~ 0.10 mm) when compared to quadrant scans (0.05 ~ 0.06 mm). The errors were greater in the maxillary scans than in the mandibular scans. The evaluation of errors for each tooth showed that the errors were greater in posterior teeth than in anterior teeth. Comparing the right and left errors, the right side posterior teeth showed a more substantial variance than the left side in the mandibular scans. Conclusion The scanning accuracy has a difference between complete-arch scanning and quadrant scanning, particularly in the posterior teeth. Careful consideration is needed to avoid scanning inaccuracy for maxillary or mandibular complete-arch, particularly in the posterior area because a complete-arch scan might have potential error than a quadrant scan.

Objective The rapid development of artificial intelligence technologies for medical imaging has recently enabled automatic identification of anatomical landmarks on radiographs. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of an automatic cephalometric analysis using convolutional neural network with those obtained by a conventional cephalometric approach. Material and methods Cephalometric measurements of lateral cephalograms from 35 patients were obtained using an automatic program and a conventional program. Fifteen skeletal cephalometric measurements, nine dental cephalometric measurements, and two soft tissue cephalometric measurements obtained by the two methods were compared using paired t test and Bland-Altman plots. Results A comparison between the measurements from the automatic and conventional cephalometric analyses in terms of the paired t test confirmed that the saddle angle, linear measurements of maxillary incisor to NA line, and mandibular incisor to NB line showed statistically significant differences. All measurements were within the limits of agreement based on the Bland-Altman plots. The widths of limits of agreement were wider in dental measurements than those in the skeletal measurements. Conclusions Automatic cephalometric analyses based on convolutional neural network may offer clinically acceptable diagnostic performance. Careful consideration and additional manual adjustment are needed for dental measurements regarding tooth structures for higher accuracy and better performance.

Although there were some deviations in visible inspection, there was no statistical significance between the two intraoral scanners.

Objectives The need for intraoral scanning in the presence of brackets has increased for monitoring tooth movement during orthodontic treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of orthodontic brackets bonded to tooth surfaces on intraoral scans. Materials and Methods Intraoral scans were performed in 30 patients using both iTero and Trios scanners before and after bonding of the brackets. The two sets of intraoral scans of each patient and intraoral scans with and without brackets were superimposed using a best-fit algorithm, and three-dimensional (3D) surface analysis was performed. In each superimposition, discrepancies in the 3D axes and arch-width measurements in the incisor and molar regions were compared. In addition, the range of distortion around the brackets was evaluated on the cross sections of each superimposition. Results The overall discrepancies between the intraoral scans with and without brackets were within 0.30 mm. The arch-width discrepancies in the molar region were greater than those in the incisor region, but the differences were not statistically significant (P = .972 for iTero; P = .960 for Trios). The cross sections of the superimposed intraoral scans with and without brackets showed that the deviations were within 0.40 mm in the horizontal section and within 0.35 mm in the vertical section around the brackets. Conclusions The results of this study indicate that the accuracy of intraoral scans, even in the presence of brackets, is clinically acceptable, and the regions beyond 0.50 mm around the brackets should be used for superimposition on images without brackets.