METHODS: An online REDCap questionnaire was circulated to surgeons in the Asia-Pacific region during the period of July 2019 to September 2019 to inquire about various components of nonoperative treatment for AIS. Aspects under study included access to screening, when MRIs were obtained, quality-of-life assessments used, role of scoliosis-specific exercises, bracing criteria, type of brace used, maturity parameters used, brace wear regimen, follow-up criteria, and how braces were weaned. Comparisons were made between middle-high income and low-income countries, and experience with nonoperative treatment.
RESULTS: A total of 103 responses were collected. About half (52.4%) of the responders had scoliosis screening programs and were particularly situated in middle-high income countries. Up to 34% obtained MRIs for all cases, while most would obtain MRIs for neurological problems. The brace criteria were highly variable and was usually based on menarche status (74.7%), age (59%), and Risser staging (92.8%). Up to 52.4% of surgeons elected to brace patients with large curves before offering surgery. Only 28% of responders utilized CAD-CAM techniques for brace fabrication and most (76.8%) still utilized negative molds. There were no standardized criteria for brace weaning.
CONCLUSION: There are highly variable practices related to nonoperative treatment for AIS and may be related to availability of resources in certain countries. Relative consensus was achieved for when MRI should be obtained and an acceptable brace compliance should be more than 16 hours a day.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this simulation study was to establish a reference percentage value that can be used to effectively reduce the size and polygons of the 3D mesh without drastically affecting the dimensions of the prosthesis itself.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifteen different maxillary palatal defects were simulated on a dental cast and scanned to create 3D casts. Digital bulbs were fabricated from the casts. Conventional bulbs for the defects were fabricated, scanned, and compared with the digital bulb to serve as a control. The polygon parameters of digital bulbs were then reduced by different percentages (75%, 50%, 25%, 10%, 5%, and 1% of the original mesh) which created a total of 105 meshes across 7 mesh groups. The reduced mesh files were compared individually with the original design in an open-source point cloud comparison software program. The parameters of comparison used in this study were Hausdorff distance (HD), Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and volume.
RESULTS: The reduction in file size was directly proportional to the amount of mesh reduction. There were minute yet insignificant differences in volume (P>.05) across all mesh groups, with significant differences (P
METHOD: Medical image data for five types of defects were selected, segmented, converted and decimated to 3D polygon models on a personal computer. The models were transferred to a computer aided design (CAD) software which aided in designing the prosthesis according to the virtual models. Two templates were designed for each defect, one by an OS (free) system and one by CS. The parameters for analyses were the virtual volume, Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorff's distance (HD) and were executed by the OS point cloud comparison tool.
RESULT: There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between CS and OS when comparing the volume of the template outputs. While HD was within 0.05-4.33 mm, evaluation of the percentage similarity and spatial overlap following the DSC showed an average similarity of 67.7% between the two groups. The highest similarity was with orbito-facial prostheses (88.5%) and the lowest with facial plate prosthetics (28.7%).
CONCLUSION: Although CS and OS pipelines are capable of producing templates which are aesthetically and volumetrically similar, there are slight comparative discrepancies in the landmark position and spatial overlap. This is dependent on the software, associated commands and experienced decision-making. CAD-based templates can be planned on current personal computers following appropriate decimation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An auricular prosthesis, a complete denture, and anterior and posterior crowns were constructed using conventional methods and laser scanned to create computerized 3D meshes. The meshes were optimized independently by four computer-aided design software (Meshmixer, Meshlab, Blender, and SculptGL) to 100%, 90%, 75%, 50%, and 25% levels of original file size. Upon optimization, the following parameters were virtually evaluated and compared; mesh vertices, file size, mesh surface area (SA), mesh volume (V), interpoint discrepancies (geometric similarity based on virtual point overlapping), and spatial similarity (volumetric similarity based on shape overlapping). The influence of software and optimization on surface area and volume of each prosthesis was evaluated independently using multiple linear regression.
RESULTS: There were clear observable differences in vertices, file size, surface area, and volume. The choice of software significantly influenced the overall virtual parameters of auricular prosthesis [SA: F(4,15) = 12.93, R2 = 0.67, p < 0.001. V: F(4,15) = 9.33, R2 = 0.64, p < 0.001] and complete denture [SA: F(4,15) = 10.81, R2 = 0.67, p < 0.001. V: F(4,15) = 3.50, R2 = 0.34, p = 0.030] across optimization levels. Interpoint discrepancies were however limited to <0.1mm and volumetric similarity was >97%.
CONCLUSION: Open-source mesh optimization of smaller dental prostheses in this study produced minimal loss of geometric and volumetric details. SculptGL models were most influenced by the amount of optimization performed.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this virtual analysis study was to compare the accuracy and precision of 3-dimensional (3D) ear models generated by scanning gypsum casts with a smartphone camera and a desktop laser scanner.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six ear casts were fabricated from green dental gypsum and scanned with a laser scanner. The resultant 3D models were exported as standard tessellation language (STL) files. A stereophotogrammetry system was fabricated by using a motorized turntable and an automated microcontroller photograph capturing interface. A total of 48 images were captured from 2 angles on the arc (20 degrees and 40 degrees from the base of the turntable) with an image overlap of 15 degrees, controlled by a stepper motor. Ear 1 was placed on the turntable and captured 5 times with smartphone 1 and tested for precision. Then, ears 1 to 6 were scanned once with a laser scanner and with smartphones 1 and 2. The images were converted into 3D casts and compared for accuracy against their laser scanned counterparts for surface area, volume, interpoint mismatches, and spatial overlap. Acceptability thresholds were set at <0.5 mm for interpoint mismatches and >0.70 for spatial overlap.
RESULTS: The test for smartphone precision in comparison with that of the laser scanner showed a difference in surface area of 774.22 ±295.27 mm2 (6.9% less area) and in volume of 4228.60 ±2276.89 mm3 (13.4% more volume). Both acceptability thresholds were also met. The test for accuracy among smartphones 1, 2, and the laser scanner showed no statistically significant differences (P>.05) in all 4 parameters among the groups while also meeting both acceptability thresholds.
CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone cameras used to capture 48 overlapping gypsum cast ear images in a controlled environment generated 3D models parametrically similar to those produced by standard laser scanners.