Esthetic dental perception comparisons between 2D- and 3D-simulated dental discrepancies

Revilla‐León, Marta; Campbell, Hayley E.; Meyer, Matthew J.; Umorin, Mikhail; Sones, Amerian; Zandinejad, Amirali

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.015

Cited by 13 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, the dentofacial integration was conducted on facial and 3D dental models. The accuracy of smile evaluation has been reported to depend on the use of 2D photographs or 3D models [ 37 ]. Accordingly, the dental disparities on the 3D models were evaluated more accurately by dentists than were the same discrepancies in the 2D photographs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Artificial Extraoral Markers on Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Dentofacial Image Integration: Smartphone Face Scan versus Stereophotogrammetry

Mai

Lee

2022

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, three-dimensional (3D) facial scanning has been gaining popularity in personalized dentistry. Integration of the digital dental model into the 3D facial image allows for a treatment plan to be made in accordance with the patients’ individual needs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of extraoral markers on the accuracy of digital dentofacial integrations. Facial models were generated using smartphone and stereophotogrammetry. Dental models were generated with and without extraoral markers and were registered to the facial models by matching the teeth or markers (n = 10 in each condition; total = 40). Accuracy of the image integration was measured in terms of general 3D position, occlusal plane, and dental midline deviations. The Mann–Whitney U test and two-way analysis of variance were used to compare results among face-scanning systems and matching methods (α = 0.05). As result, the accuracy of dentofacial registration was significantly affected by the use of artificial markers and different face-scanning systems (p < 0.001). The deviations were smallest in stereophotogrammetry with the marker-based matching and highest in smartphone face scans with the tooth-based matching. In comparison between the two face-scanning systems, the stereophotogrammetry generally produced smaller discrepancies than smartphones.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Artificial Extraoral Markers on Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Dentofacial Image Integration: Smartphone Face Scan versus Stereophotogrammetry

Mai

Lee

2022

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…38 Dental literature analyzing esthetic perception disparities between the 2D and 3D patient representation among dental professionals and laypeople is scarce. 39,40 Previous authors concluded that differences in dimension significantly influenced the esthetic perception of the subjects, where the 3D facial simulations of particular dental discrepancies obtained higher esthetic ratings compared with the corresponding 2D simulations. 39 Therefore, esthetic discrepancies were detected to a lesser extent on the 3D visualizations.…”

Section: D Non-dental Cad Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…39,40 Previous authors concluded that differences in dimension significantly influenced the esthetic perception of the subjects, where the 3D facial simulations of particular dental discrepancies obtained higher esthetic ratings compared with the corresponding 2D simulations. 39 Therefore, esthetic discrepancies were detected to a lesser extent on the 3D visualizations. The same group of authors in a later study, evaluated the perception among the same population when rating the study participant's own 2D and 3D simulations of dental discrepancies.…”

Section: D Non-dental Cad Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

2D and 3D patient's representation of simulated restorative esthetic outcomes using different computer‐aided design software programs

Piedra‐Cascón

Fountain²,

Att

et al. 2021

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To review the techniques and available 2D and 3D computer‐aided design (CAD) software programs to perform a diagnostic waxing for restorative procedures when cone beam computed tomography is not indicated. Overview An electronic review was performed in Medline, Embase, and Scopus search engines. A manual search was also conducted. The articles evaluating methods to obtain a 2D or 3D patient's representation for restorative dental procedures were included. A total of 33 articles were included for full text review. CAD programs provide the capability to integrate facial features from 2D photographs or 3D facial scans and facilitate facially driven digital diagnostic waxing procedures. Diagnostic and design tools varied among the programs, and multiple technique descriptions were found. However, the literature evaluating the accuracy of virtual patients and the perception variations between the 2D and 3D dimensional representations is limited. Conclusions The integration of digital technologies into treatment planning procedures introduce variation into the conventional interfaces; however, the concepts remain the same. Further studies are needed to evaluate the accuracy of the virtual representations and the influence of the type of dimensional representation on the esthetic perceptions among dental professionals. Clinical significance The 2D and 3D CAD software programs facilitate the integration of facial features into digital diagnostic waxing procedures; however, the esthetic perception of the patient's virtual representation might vary among the different systems.

show abstract

“…Several studies have compared the perceptual differences in smile evaluation between 2 and 3D simulations. They found that the dimensions of records can influence the perception of smile aesthetics [ 26 – 28 ]. However, it remains unclear how do smile features implement their combined effect on the perceptual difference between traditional 2D photographs and 3D dentofacial images in smile evaluation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual difference of smile aesthetics between 2-dimensional photographs and 3-dimensional dentofacial images: a cross-sectional study

Xiao¹,

Chen²,

Zhao³

et al. 2023

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The aim of this study was to compare the perceptual difference of smile aesthetics between 2D photographs and 3D dentofacial images as perceived by orthodontists and graduate students. Methods Forty-eight subjects finished orthodontic treatment were recruited with 2D photographs of frontal, oblique and lateral views as well as 3D dentofacial images. Twelve senior orthodontists and 13 postgraduate students were asked to rate the 2D and 3D smile simulations based on visual analog scale (VAS) and to vote for smile features that affect the attractiveness of smile. At the end, they completed a questionnaire about their views on different smile simulations. Wilcoxon signed-rank, Bland–Altman analysis, and multiple linear regression were used to compare the ratings and votes of smile perception between raters and between records. Results Orthodontists and postgraduate students rated smile consistently with 2D photographs, while orthodontists tended to give a higher rate for unattractive smiles and a lower rate for attractive smiles with 3D dentofacial images. The 3D dentofacial images were rated significantly lower than 2D photographs and the voting of most of the smile features showed significant negative main effect on VAS scores, while the effect of demographic characteristics of raters, voting on visible width of upper dentition and buccal corridor was not significant. In addition, a significant negative main effect of commissure and facial profile was found on the rating discrepancy between 2D and 3D images. Conclusions Senior orthodontists tend to perceived 3D images more conservatively in smile evaluation. 3D dentofacial images were rated lower than 2D photographs and most of the smile features affect the aesthetic perception of smile. The perceptual difference of commissure and facial profile contributed to the lower ratings in 3D dentofacial images.

show abstract

Esthetic dental perception comparisons between 2D- and 3D-simulated dental discrepancies

Cited by 13 publications

References 21 publications

Effects of Artificial Extraoral Markers on Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Dentofacial Image Integration: Smartphone Face Scan versus Stereophotogrammetry

Effects of Artificial Extraoral Markers on Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Dentofacial Image Integration: Smartphone Face Scan versus Stereophotogrammetry

2D and 3D patient's representation of simulated restorative esthetic outcomes using different computer‐aided design software programs

Perceptual difference of smile aesthetics between 2-dimensional photographs and 3-dimensional dentofacial images: a cross-sectional study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About