請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/16618
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 郭生興 | |
dc.contributor.author | Ju-Hung Pan | en |
dc.contributor.author | 潘汝弘 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-07T18:24:13Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2011-10-05 | |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2011-08-03 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. McGuire MK, Nunn ME. Prognosis versus actual outcome. II. The effectiveness of clinical parameters in developing an accurate prognosis. J Periodontol 1996;67: 658–665.
2. McGuire MK, Nunn ME. Prognosis versus actual outcome. III. The effectiveness of clinical parameters in accurately predicting tooth survival. J Periodontol 1996;67: 666–674. 3. Tylman SD, Tylman SG. Theory and Practice of Crown and Bridge Prosthodontics. St. Louis: The C.V. Mosby Company; 1960:160-161. 4. Hujoel PP, Bollen AM, Schork A. Quantification of periodontal attachment at single-rooted teeth. J Clin Periodontol 1989;16:224–228. 5. Hujoel PP, Bollen AM, DeRouen TA. Quantification of periodontal attachment at multi-rooted teeth. J Clin Periodontol 1992;19:193–196. 6. Crabb JJ, Wilson HJ. A method of measuring root areas of extracted teeth. J Dent 1974;2:171–174. 7. Brown R. A method of measurement of root area. J Canadian Dent Assoc 1950;16:130–132. 8. Jepsen A. Root surface measurement and a method for X-ray determination of root surface area. Acta Odont Scand 1963;21:35–46. 9. Klock KS, Gjerdet NR, Haugejorden O. Periodontal attachment loss assessed by linear and area measurements in vitro. J Clin Periodontol 1993;20:443–447. 10. Luthra SP, Narayan I, Subrahmanyam N. Root surface area measured by the benzene adsorption method. J Prosthet Dent 1974;31:185–189. 11. Jeffcoat MK, Williams RC. Relationship between linear and area measurements of radiographic bone levels utilizing simple computerized techniques. J Periodont Res 1984;19:191–198. 12. Rosling B, Hollender L, Nyman S, Olsson G. A radiographic method for assessing changes in alveolar bone height following periodontal therapy. J Clin Periodontol 1975;2:211–217. 13. Chen SK, Chen CM, Jeng JY. Calculation of simplified single-root surface area from simulated X-ray projection. J Periodontol 2002;73:906–910. 14. Webb S. The Physics of Medical Imaging. Bristol, UK: Adam Hilger; 1988:99. 15. Jain AK. Image reconstruction from projections. In: Fundamentals of Digital Image Processing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc; 1989:431–475. 16. White DR, Martin RJ, Darlison R. Epoxy resin based tissue substitutes. Br J Radiol 1977;55:814–821. 17. Welander U, Tronje G, McDavid WD. Theory of Rotational Panoramic Radiography. In: Langland OE et al., eds. Panoramic Radiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1989:64-67. 18. Gomez-Roman G, Lukas D, Beniashvili R, et al.. Area-dependent enlargement ratios of panoramic tomography on orthograde patient positioning and its significance for implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 1999;14:248–257. 19. BouSerhal C, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, et al.. Imaging technique selection for the preoperative planning of oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2002;4:156–172. 20. Ghali GE, Sikes JW Jr. Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy as the preferred treatment for mandibular prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;58:313–315. 21. Wolford LM. The sagittal split ramus osteotomy as the preferred treatment for mandibular prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;58:310–312. 22. Schendel SA, Epker BN. Results after mandibular advancement surgery: An analysis of 87 cases. J Oral Surg 1980;38:265–282. 23. Becktor JP, Rebellato J, Becktor KB, Isaksson S, Vickers PD, Keller EE. Transverse displacement of the proximal segment after bilateral sagittal osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;60:395–403. 24. Becktor JP, Rebellato J, Sollenius O, Vedtofte P, Isaksson S. Transverse displacement of the proximal segment after bilateral sagittal osteotomy: a comparison of lag screw fixation versus miniplates with monocortical screw technique. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66:104–111. 25. Angle AD, Rebellato J, Sheats RD. Transverse displacement of the proximal segment after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy advancement and its effect on relapse. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:50–59. 26. Choi HS, Rebellato J, Yoon HJ, Lund BA. Effect of mandibular setback via bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy on transverse displacement of the proximal segment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:908–916. 27. Jung YS, Kim SY, Park SY, Choi YD, Park HS. Changes of transverse mandibular width after intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;110:25–31. 28. Ayoub AF, Wray D, Moos KF, Siebert P, Jin J, Niblett TB, Urquhart C, Mowforth R. Three-dimensional modeling for modern diagnosis and planning in maxillofacial surgery. Int J of Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1996;11:225–233. 29. Schreiber W, Notni G. Theory and arrangements of self-calibrating whole-body three-dimensional measurement systems using fringe projection technique. Opt Eng 2000;39:159–169. 30. Kowarschik R, Kühmstedt P, Gerber J, Schreiber W, Notni G. Adaptive optical three-dimensional measurement with structured light. Opt Eng 2000;39:150–158. 31. Kujawinska M, Salbut L, Patorski K. Three-channel phase stepped system for moire interferometry. Appl Opt 1991;30:1633–1635. 32. Dal Pont G. Retromolar osteotomy for the correction of prognathism. J Oral Surg Anesth Hosp Dent Serv 1961;19:42–47. 33. Hall HD, Chase DC, Payor LG. Evaluation and refinement of the intraoral vertical subcondylar osteotomy. J Oral Surg 1975;33:333–341. 34. Hall HD, McKenna SJ. Further refinement and evaluation of the intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1987;45:684–688. 35. Epker BN. A modified anterior maxillary osteotomy. J Maxillofac Surg 1977;5:35–38. 36. Ziccardi VB, Wilk R. Chapter 11—Anterior and posterior maxillary segmental osteotomies. In Fonseca RJ ed. Oral and Maxillary Surgery. Volume II. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company; 2000: 249-259. 37. Zweig BE. Chapter 16—Anterior mandibular subapical osteotomy. In Fonseca RJ ed. Oral and Maxillary Surgery. Volume II. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company; 2000: 325-328. 38. Sullivan SM. Chapter 20—Genial procedures. In Fonseca RJ ed. Oral and Maxillary Surgery. Volume II. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company; 2000: 403-415. 39. Legan HL, Burstone CJ. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1980;38:744–751. 40. Ueki K, Marukawa K, Nakagawa K, Yamamoto E. Condylar and temporomandibular joint disc positions after mandibular osteotomy for prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;60:1424–1432. 41. Ueki K, Marukawa K, Shimada M, Nakagawa K, Yamamoto E. Change in condylar long axis and skeletal stability followingsagittal split ramus osteotomy and intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy for mandibular prognathia. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:1494–1499. 42. Eggensperger N, Raditsch T, Taghizadeh F, Iizuka T. Mandibular setback by sagittal split ramus osteotomy: A 12-year follow-up. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 2005;63:183–188. 43. de Villa GH, Huang CS, Chen PKT, Chen YR. Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for correction of mandibular prognathism: Long-term results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:1584–1592. 44. Choa HJ. Long-term stability of surgical mandibular setback. Angle Orthodontist 2007;77:851–856. 45. Kitahara T, Nakasima A, Kurahara S, Shiratsuchi Y. Hard and soft tissue stability of orthognathic surgery—Sagittal split ramus osteotomy and intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy. Angle Orthod 2009;79:158–165. 46. Brown DC. Close-range camera calibration. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 1971;37(8):855–866. 47. Hajeer MY, Ayoub AF, Millett DT, Bock M, Siebert JP. Three-dimensional imaging in orthognathic surgery–—the clinical application of a new method. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 2002;17:318–330. 48. Jacobson A, Jacobson RL ed. Radiographic Cephalometry—From basic to 3-D imaging. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Publishing. 2006:153–160, 205–217, 267–292. 49. Ghafari J, Cater PE, Shofer FS. Effect of film-object distance on posteroanterior cephalometric measurements: Suggestions for standardized cephalometric methods. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995;108:30–37. 50. Ishiguro K, Krogman WM, Mazaheri M, Harding RL. A longitudinal study of morphological craniofacial patterns via P-A x-ray head-films in cleft patients from birth to six years of age. Cleft Palate J 1976;13:104–26. 51. Lee W, Park JU. Three-dimensional evaluation of positional change of the condyle after mandibular setback by means of bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endo 2002;94:305–309. 52. Kawamata A, Fujishita M, Nagahara K, Kanematu N, Niwa K, Langlais RP. Three-dimensional computed tomography evaluation of postsurgical condylar displacement after mandibular osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998;85:371–376. 53. Nishimura A, Sakurada S, Iwase M, Nagumo M. Positional changes in the mandibular condyle and amount of mouth opening after sagittal split ramus osteotomy with rigid or nonrigid osteosynthesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;55:672–676. 54. Benson BW, Frederiksen NL. A reliability comparison of submentovertex and zonographic methods of horizontal condylar angle estimation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998;86:370–375. 55. Williamson PC, Major PW, Nebbe B, Glover KE. Landmark identification error in submentovertex cephalometrics. A computerized method for determining the condylar long axis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998;86:360–369. 56. Watzke IM, Heinrich A. The impact of bilateral sagittal split osteotomy on mandibular width and morphology. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;60:502–504. 57. Legrell PE, Nyquist H, Isberg A. Validity of identification of gonion and antegonion in frontal cephalograms. Angle Orthod 2000;70:157–164. 58. Yoshioka I, Khanal A, Tominaga K, Horie A, Furuta N, Fukuda J. Vertical ramus versus sagittal split osteotomies: comparison of stability after mandibular setback. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:1138–1144. 59. Aastrand P, Riddell A. Positional changes of the mandibular and the upper and lower teeth after oblique sliding osteotomy of the mandibular ramu. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1973;7:120–129. 60. Proffit WR, Phillips C, Dann 4th C. Stability after surgical orthodontic correction of skeletal class in malocclusion. I. Mandibular setback. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognathic Surg 1991;6:7–18. 61. Ayoub AF, Millett DT, Hasan S. Evaluation of skeletal stability following surgical correction of mandibular prognathism. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;38:305–311. 62. Carter J, Leonard M, Cavanaugh G, Brand J. Horizontal rotation of the condyle after sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1991;99:319–327. 63. Astrand P, Ericson S. Relation between fragments after oblique sliding osteotomy of the mandibular rami and its influence on postoperative conditions. Int J Oral Surg 1974;3:49–59. 64. Singh GD. Digital diagnostics: Three-dimensional modeling. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;46:22–26. 65. Riphagen JM, van Neck JW, van Adrichem LNA. 3D Surface imaging in medicine: A Review of working principles and implications for imaging the unsedated child. J Craniofac Surg 2008;19:517–524. 66. Weinberg SM, Kolar JC: Three-dimensional surface imaging: limitations and considerations from the anthropometric perspective. J Craniofac Surg 2005, 16:847–851. 67. Aung SC, Ngim RCK, and Lee ST. Evaluation of the laser scanner as a surface measuring tool and its accuracy compared with direct facial anthropometric measurements. Br J Plast Surg 1995;48:551–558. 68. Gwilliam JR, Cunningham SJ, Hutton T. Reproducibility of soft tissue landmarks on three-dimensional facial scans. Euro J Orthod 2006;28:408–415. 69. Lübbers H, Medinger L, Kruse A, Grätz KW, Matthews F. Precision and accuracy of the 3dMD photogrammetric system in craniomaxillofacial application. J Craniofac Surg 2010;21:763–767. 70. Heike CL, Upson K, Stuhaug E, Weinberg SM. 3D digital stereophotogrammetry: a practical guide to facial image acquisition. Head & Face Medicine 2010;6:18–28. 71. Heike CL, Cunningham ML, Hing AV, Stuhaug E, Starr JR. Picture perfect? Reliability of craniofacial anthropometry using three-dimensional digital stereophotogrammetry. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124:1261–1272. 72. Wong JY, Oh AK, Ohta E, Hunt AT, Rogers GF, Mulliken JB, Deutsch CK: Validity and reliability of craniofacial anthropometric measurement of 3D digital photogrammetric images. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2008;45:232–239. 73. de Menezes M, Rosati R, Ferrario VF, Sforza C. Accuracy and reproducibility of a 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetric imaging system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:2129–2135. 74. Sawyer AR, See M, Nduka C. Quantitative analysis of normal smile with 3D stereophotogrammetry—an aid to facial reanimation. J Plastic Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 2010;63:65–72. 75. Sawyer AR, See M, Nduka C. Assessment of the reproducibility of facial expressions with 3-D stereophotogrammetry. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery 2009;140:76–81. 76. See MS, Roberts C, Nduka C. Age- and gravity-related changes in facial morphology: 3-dimensional analysis of facial morphology in mother-daughter pairs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:1410–1416. 77. Ayoub AF, Garrahy A, Hood C, White J, Bock M, Siebert JP, et al.. Validation of a vision-based three-dimensional facial imaging system. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2003;40:523–529. 78. Schwenzer-Zimmerer K, Haberstok J, Kovacs L, Boerner BI, Schwenzer N, Juergens P, Zeihofer HF, Holberg C: 3D surface measurement for medical application–technical comparison of two established industrial surface scanning systems. J Med Syst 2008;32:59–64. 79. Weinberg SM, Naidoo S, Govier DP, Martin RA, Kane AA, Marazita ML. Anthropometric precision and accuracy of digital three-dimensional photogrammetry: comparing the Genex and 3dMD imaging systems with one another and with direct anthropometry. J Craniofac Surg. 2006;17:477–483. 80. Weinberg SM, Scott NM, Neiswanger K, Brandon CA, Marazita ML. Digital three-dimensional photogrammetry: evaluation of anthropometric precision and accuracy using a Genex 3D camera system. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41:507–518. 81. Winder RJ, Darvann TA, McKnight W, Magee JD, Ramsay-Baggs P: Technical validation of the Di3D stereophotogrammetry surface imaging system. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;46:33–37. 82. Aldridge K, Boyadjiev SA, Capone GT, DeLeon VB, Richtsmeier JT. Precision and error of three-dimensional phenotypic measures acquired from 3dMD photogrammetric images. Am J Med Genet A. 2005;138A:247–253. 83. Kau CH, Richmond S, Zhurov AI, Knox J, Chestnutt I, Hartles F, Playle R: Reliability of measuring facial morphology with a 3-dimensional laser scanning system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:424–430. 84. Khambay B, Nairn N, Bell A, Miller J, Bowman A, Ayoub AF: Validation and reproducibility of a high-resolution three-dimensional facial imaging system. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;46:27–32. 85. Krimmel M, Kluba S, Bacher M, Dietz K, Reinert S: Digital surface photogrammetry for anthropometric analysis of the cleft infant face. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2006;43:350–355. 86. Ghoddousi H, Edler R, Haers P, Wertheim D, Greenhill D. Comparison of three methods of facial measurement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;36:250–258. 87. Plooij JM, Swennen GR, Rangel FA, Maal TJ, Schutyser FA, Bronkhorst EM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Berge SJ: Evaluation of reproducibility and reliability of 3D soft tissue analysis using 3D stereophotogrammetry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38:267–273. 88. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Poggio CE, Cova M, Tartaglia G: Preliminary evaluation of an electromagnetic three-dimensional digitizer in facial anthropometry. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1998;35:9–15. 89. Kusnoto B, Evans CA. Reliability of a 3D surface laser scanner for orthodontic applications. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:342–348. 90. Marumulla R, Hassfeld S, Luth T, Muhling A. Laser-scan-based navigation in cranio-maxillofacial surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2003;31:267–277. 91. Kau CH, Zhurov AI, Knox J, Richmond S. The validity and reliability of a portable 3-dimensional laser scanner for field studies. In: Giuliani R, Galliani EE, editors. 7th European Craniofacial Congress, 2004, Bologna, Italy: Monduzzi Editore – International Proceedings Division. p 41–45. 92. Ramieri GA, Spada1 MC, Nasi1 A, Tavolaccini1 A, Vezzetti E, Tornincasa S, et al.. Reconstruction of facial morphology from laser scanned data. Part I: reliability of the technique. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006;35:158–164. 93. Bell A, Ayoub AF, Siebert P. Assessment of the accuracy of a three-dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models. J Orthod 2003;30:219–223. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/16618 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 第一部分
目的:(1)以數學模型,找出牙根表面積和x光投影的關係。(2)以牙根長度或牙根投影面積估計牙科X光影像當中的牙根表面積。(3)發現牙根表面積和真實牙根厚度的關聯性,或是和牙科數位X光影像計算出的牙根厚度的關聯性。 材料及方法:(1)將牙根橫切面簡化為不同離心率的橢圓,並以每隔1度分別投影,得到來自90個方向的牙根投影資料,用於估計每個橢圓的周長,並和已知的周長比較。其次,由和橢圓長軸平行的中央光線的投影資料估計其周長,並和所有可能來自同樣的投影資料的周長比較。(2)取8顆已拔下之單牙根之牙進行三維掃瞄,直接測量牙根表面積。原始測量的點資料再進行三維重建,得到牙根之長度(估計牙根表面積),投影面積(估計牙根表面積),及真實牙根表面積。根據這三種方法,在不同牙根長度分別評估有齒槽骨支持的牙根所占的比例的精確度。(3)另外在其數位X光影像當中,分別計算牙根長度,牙根投影面積,和牙根的數位X光影像當中的各點像素值,並分別藉以估計牙根表面積比例,計算並比較誤差。(4)牙根厚度可以直接測量或由數位X光影像估計二種方法得到。比較二種由牙根厚度來估計牙根周長的方法。 結果:(1)在橢圓中,所有估計的周長都小於真實的周長。離心率減少時,最大誤差也減少。即使有相同的投影資料,當不對稱因子增加時,誤差也會增加。(2)以牙根長度估計牙根表面積,最大平均誤差是9.58%,其95%信賴區間皆正值,顯示會高估了具齒槽骨之支持比例,並有顯著差異。由CEJ向根尖每隔1 mm便分別以牙根長度,牙根投影面積進行一次估計時發現,以牙根長度估計直到在牙骨質牙釉質界線下方8 mm時,都還呈現顯著差異,而以投影面積估計時,只有在牙骨質牙釉質界線下方2 mm內,才呈現顯著差異。(3)以牙根長度估計的平均誤差為7.9%,以牙根投影面積估計的平均誤差為1.3%。(4)直接測量厚度和估計厚度的差平均在兩組當中最大值分別是-4.94% (±0.07%)和23.02% (±1.12%),而其最大的95%信賴區間分別是 (-2.82%, -1.87%) 和(-5:42%, 2.22%)。 討論和結論:(1)橢圓形的物體可以由橢圓的投影資料來近似。所以單牙根的牙根表面積可以使用投影資料而有臨床上的精確度。(2)但當邊緣骨破壞超過牙骨質牙釉質界線2 mm時,以牙根投影面積估計牙根表面積便不會有顯著差異。牙根表面積比例的函數可能是牙科數位X光影像系統的優點。(3)三維坐標量測儀可進行三維掃瞄,是一種非破壞性測量牙根表面積的方法。只使用長度資料來估計會造成顯著地不精確。單牙根牙齒的牙根表面積可以由數位牙科X光影像的投影資料估計而能有很高的精確度,所以牙科數位X光影像提供一個有效估計牙根支持比的可能性。(4)當有厚度資料時,單牙根之牙根表面積估計誤差小於5%。理論上,投影的放射線影像可以算出牙根的厚度,但估計周長的誤差可能會超過20%。如果牙科數位X光影像的估計厚度可以再更精確的話,前述誤差便可最小化。 第二部分 目的:探討正顎手術對顎面軟硬組織的變化。比較SSRO和IVRO的異同,包括下顎近心段和遠心段的位移變化,中線輪廓的變化,顎面軟組織變化的差異。以及單純下顎手術及雙顎手術顎面軟組織變化的差異。 病人和方法:於2003-2010年,在於國立臺灣大學醫學院附設醫院口腔顎面外科接受過正顎手術的病人。在術前一個月內(T1),術後一周內(T2),術後至少半年後(T3)分別取得側面及正面的測顱放射線影像,及部分病人的三維影像。 結果:(1)全體上升枝角之測量標準誤差為0.08º±0.05º。(2)T1時SSRO和IVRO的總上升枝角(TRA)並沒有差別。T2時兩組皆立即明顯地增加,且在IVRO組增加的量比在SSRO組要大。T2-T3時,IVRO組的TRA呈現劇減,但SSRO組則維持穩定。總的來說,IVRO組的TRA變化反而並不夠顯著,但SSRO組在術後半年後則維持和術前顯著不同。T3時二者的TRA並無差別。(3)上升枝傾斜度角(RIA)的變化:T1時兩組沒有差別,T2時則有明顯差異,但T3時卻又沒有差別。SSRO在T1-T2-T3測量,沒有差異。但IVRO則是先增(即上升枝近心段向後旋轉,P < 0.01)後減(即上升枝近心段向前回復,P < 0.05)。(4)condylion位置變化:在SSRO組當中,condylion由T1到T3時的位移不顯著。在IVRO組當中,condylion水平方向先向前後向後總體來說是向前。垂直方向不顯著。(5)就SSRO而言,RIA變化對於術後遠心段在垂直方向的回復關聯性最高。但就IVRO而言,condylion的位移變化,無論是水平或垂直方向,對於術後遠心段的回復關聯性最高。(6)對於側向位移而言,SSRO的同側RA和側移有關聯,對側則沒有關聯性。IVRO則未逹到顯著的關聯性。(7)測顱分析的軟組織變化主要在下臉部各點。(8)三維影像校正誤差約在0.2到0.3 mm之間。測量誤差則是0.11±0.55 mm。兩種使用的投射光色塊的尺寸對重建的三維模型的線性測量並沒有顯著的差異。但照相的角度卻會顯著地影響長度測量的結果。(9)雙顎手術之三維影像變化:在環口部位都是呈現後縮,但頦部則因向前重置。(13)單顎手術之三維影像變化:下唇以下部位十分明顯,尤其是menton的後縮最明顯,而上唇即便也有後縮,但變化則較不明顯且變異度較大,沿中線往上的各點變化就更少了。這個結果和測顱分析的結果一致。 討論:測顱要在一個客觀可重複取像的位置,其次要有實際的長度或影像的放大率。研究採用整個上升枝的外緣來代表近心段的位置顯示有很好的精準度。即便手術復原癒合重塑過程SSRO和IVRO有所不同,但術後中長期而言,二組TRA以及RIA都沒有差別。就SSRO而言,RIA變化對於術後遠心段在垂直方向的回復關聯性最高。但就IVRO而言,condylion的位移變化,無論是水平或垂直方向,對於術後遠心段的回復關聯性最高。在二維影像方法當中,只能侷限於特定平面的變化,其他平面的變化則無法得到。所以顏面軟組織的變化,就有賴於三維影像。立體攝影測量法(binocular stereophotogrammetry),其精確度決定在校正(calibration)和對應(correspondence)上。先藉由校正的過程,以直接線性轉換法計算出影像系統有關的參數。而校正的誤差由三維校正板坐標誤差來評估。然後以這些參數代入實際人臉影像,計算出其三維坐標。一個好的三維重建模型,原始影像必須要有良好的影像品質,必須有一個好的取像角度,不要有陰影,或是投射光點有不連續情形發生,並且準確地標定臉上的標定點。在臉部的曲率增加時,就要適當地增加取樣密度(sample density),以維持精確度。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Part I
Purpose: (1) To correlate the root surface area with radiographic projection by a simplified mathematical model. (2) To evaluate the accuracy of supported single-root surface ratio estimated from the length and projected area of the tooth, using digital dental radiographs. (3) To find how the surface area of a single root is related to the true thickness data and the calculated thickness data from digital dental radiographs. Methods: (1) Cross-sections of a single-tooth root were simulated using ellipses with different eccentricities. Projection data from 90 directions at 1-degree intervals were obtained to estimate circumferences and were compared with the known circumference. Circumference was estimated from projection data derived from the projection of an ellipse with the central ray parallel to the long axis. The estimated circumference was compared with possible circumferences resulting from this projection data. (2) Eight extracted, single-root teeth were thee-dimensionally digitized using a contact technique for direct surface area measurement. The data were then processed, and length, projection darea, and true surface area of the root at a designated length were obtained. Based on these three measurements, the accuracy of the supported surface area ratio measurement at different lengths of the root was evaluated. (3) In addition, root length, projection area, and pixel values were then measured on digital radiographs. The accuracy of the ratio estimation of supported surface area from linear, area, and pixel values was calculated and compared. (4) The true thickness of the root was measured. The estimated circumference data were calculated from both the measured thickness and the thickness estimated from the digital image and then compared. Results: (1) All estimated circumferences are under-estimated. The largest error in each case decreased rapidly as the eccentricity decreased. The larger the asymmetric factor, the more error. (2) The largest mean error from linear estimation was 9.58%. The 95% confidence intervals were all positive, indicating that linear measurements overestimated supported ratio significantly. When analyzing the supported ration of tha alveolar bone receding from the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) toward the apex of the root at each mm, linear estimation showed significant differences down to 8 mm, while area estimation showed significant differences only up to 2 mm. (3) The mean error from linear estimation was 7.9%; the mean error from area estimation was 1.3%. (4) The largest circumference difference mean for measured thickness and for estimated thickness was 24.94% (±0.07%) and 23.02% (±1.12%) respectively. The largest 95% confidence interval for difference means for measured thickness and for estimated thickness was (-2.82%, -1.87%) and (-5:42%, 2.22%), respectively. Conclusions: (1) The circumference of an elliptical object can be approximated from the projection data of this ellipse. Therefore, the surface area of a single tooth root may be estimated with clinically useful accuracy from the projection data. (2) A three-dimensional digitizing device could be used as a non-destructive method of measuring root surface area. Digital dental radiographs provide the potential for estimating the ratio of supported root surface efficiently. (3) When the thickness data are available, the surface area of a single-root tooth can be estimated to an error of less than 5%. Part II Purpose: To demonstrate the maxillofacial alteration after orthognathic surgery (OGS) by comparing sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) and intraoral vertical ramus osteotmy (IVRO). In addition, qualitative analysis of three-dimensional (3-D) imaging after OGS were also done. Patients and methods: (1) From 2003 to 2010, the patients who underwent OGS at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital (NTUH). Lateral and frontal cephalometric radiographs were taken with 1 month before surgery (T1), immediately after the operation (within 1week, T2), and at the time of completion of postoperative orthodontic treatment (at least 6 month postoperatively, T3). The alteration of total ramus angles (TRA) and ramus inclination angle (RIA), the displacement of condylion, hard and soft tissue profile, side-shift, and the correlation between them were analyzed by different times in a group and between groups. (2) A stone model study was performed for the evaluation of the self-developed 3-D imaging system using modified stereophotogrammetry, which consists two cameras for synchronous capturing the image of the face, one projector for structured lighting, and a desktop or laptop computer for controlling the pattern of the structured light and processing the calibration and the correspondence by direct linear transform and disparity mapping algorithm. Soft tissue landmarks were located with 3-D coordinates, the displacement vector of the individual landmark was traced, and linear measurements between the two landmarks were recorded. Clinical OGS cases were presented as qualitative analysis of soft tissue. Results: (1) No difference in TRA between SSRO and IVRO groups in T1. In T1-T2, the TRAs increased significantly in the two groups, and more increase in TRA was noted after IVRO than SSRO. In T2-T3, TRA significantly decreased in IVRO group but remained relatively stable for SSRO. No difference in TRAs between SSRO and IVRO groups in T3. No difference in RIA between two groups in T1 and T3. It was significant difference between two groups in T2. The RIA in IVRO increased (T1-T2) and then decreased (T2-T3). Condylion kept relatively stable in SSRO group. However, condylion moved forward (T1-T2) and then backward (T2-T3). Overall, condylion moved forward (T1-T3). In SSRO, only ΔRIAT1-T2 correlated with the vertical displacement of B and pogonion in T2-T3. In IVRO, displacement of condylion correlated with displacement of distal segment. The ipsilateral ramus angle correlates with the side-shift of the distal segment in SSRO. (2) The calibration error is 0.2~0.3 mm, the measurement error is 0.11±0.55 mm. No difference in linear measurements between the two patterns of structured light. However, different orientations for capturing made significant difference in linear measurements (P < 0.05). In the patient study, in two-jaw OGS, the soft tissue profile overlying the forehead, eyes, and zygoma were minimally changed. Postoperatively, the perioral area was setback, the chin was advanced, and the lower portion of paranasal area was also slightly advanced. In one-jaw OGS, the soft tissue profile overlying the forehead, eyes, paranasal area, and zygoma were minimally changed. The region below the lower lip was setback, especially for soft tissue menton. The upper lip altered more or less. The presenting in 3D imaging agreed with that in the cephalometric radiography. Conclusion: High precision was gained when gonion was replaced with the lateral border of ramus (proximal segments) due to difficulty locating postoperatively. In 2-D imaging, such as cephalometry, it is limited to mid-sagittal plane or bi-porionic plane. Therefore, 3-D imaging is necessary for the evaluation of maxillofacial alteration after odthognathic surgery. The essentials for a good 3-D model are good original image quality, suitable capturing orientation, minimal shading from anatomic structures, free from discontinuity of structured light, accurately locating the facial landmarks. In order to keep highly accurate and precised, it is necessary to increase the sampling density on the steep curvature. The 3-D imaging system allows 3-D evaluation of the facial profile of patients with before, during, and after corrective treatment. Advances in 3-D imaging technology have made the development of practical applications in medicine, forensic, and anthropology more simple, convenient, inexpensive, and popular. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-07T18:24:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-D91422003-1.pdf: 3397019 bytes, checksum: 32655f4cac753e5e7a0ee22637aca2a3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 摘要 v
Abstract viii 第一部分:牙根表面積的評估 1 第一章 前言和實驗目的 1 第二章 實驗原理和材料方法 3 第一節 原理 3 第二節 使用CMM測量並計算牙根表面積 6 第三節 使用數位放射線影像來計算牙根表面積(圖五) 7 第四節 下顎齒槽骨高度的評估 8 第五節 資料分析及統計 9 第三章 結果 11 第一節 橢圓 11 第二節 關於CMM 11 第三節 關於數位放射線影像 11 第四節 不同投影厚度的影響 12 第五節 環口放射線影像的放大率 12 第四章 討論 14 第一節 方法 14 第二節 和先前的研究結果比較 14 第三節 來自牙齒本身的誤差 15 第四節 來自系統的誤差 16 第五節 應用於臨床 17 第六節 環口放射線攝影 17 第五章 結論 19 第二部分:正顎手術後顎面軟硬組織的變化 20 第一章 文獻回顧和理論基礎 20 第一節 正顎手術 20 第二節 測顱分析 21 第三節 三維影像 22 第四節 直接線性轉換 23 第四節 立體成像公式 29 第五節 實驗目的 30 第二章 實驗設計 32 第一節 病人 32 第二節 治療及手術步驟 32 第三節 測顱放射線影像分析 33 第四節 三維影像系統 35 第五節 假人模型分析 37 第六節 統計分析 38 第三章 結果 40 第一節 測顱分析 40 第二節 假人模型分析 42 第三節 雙顎手術個案分析(圖二十四) 43 第四節 單顎手術個案分析(圖二十五) 43 第四章 討論 44 第一節 測顱分析 44 第二節 三維影像系統 47 第五章 結論 52 參考文獻 53 圖目錄 64 圖一 橢圓模型,用來模擬牙根橫切面。說明見文內。 64 圖二 由橢圓(一半)厚度來計算(一半)周長的示意圖。 64 圖三 顯示不同的形狀有同樣的投影資料(藍線)。 65 圖四 將牙齒固定,以便可使用CMM測量牙根表面積。 65 圖五 將牙齒和bone-simulating resin step wedge同步曝光。 65 圖六 TL:total length,CT:cut-off length,RL:remaining length。 66 圖七 手術定位板的長軸分別測量從齒槽骨脊至下顎神經管最上緣之高度,如箭頭所示。 66 圖八 手術定位板的長軸分別測量從齒槽骨脊至下顎神經管最上緣之高度,如箭頭所示。 66 圖九 橢圓模型當中,不同投影角下,估計的周長和真實周長的誤差 67 圖十 相同的投影資料下,不對稱因子和周長的估計誤差的關係。 67 圖十一 斷層攝影。可顯現出舌側-頰側的切面及矢狀面。 67 圖十二 空間的三維坐標系和平面坐標系的關係(一)。 68 圖十三 空間的三維坐標系和平面坐標系的關係(二)。 68 圖十四 校正板 69 圖十五 立體成像原理示意圖。 69 圖十六 手術示意圖。 70 圖十七 正面測顱放射線影像。 71 圖十八 側面測顱放射線影像。 72 圖十九 三維影像系統。 73 圖二十 三維影像系統之取像。 74 圖二十一 75 圖二十二 不同角度取像 76 圖二十三 結構光點大小不同 77 圖二十四 雙顎手術個案 78 圖二十五 下顎手術個案 79 圖二十六 無法定義B點和pogonion 80 表目錄 81 表一 離心率,最大誤差和其對應的投影角 81 表二 True (TR, Method 1a) and estimated (LER, Method 1b and AER, Method 1c) ratio of supported root surface area for each millimeter segment 82 表三 Mean differences, standard deviation, standard error, 95% confidence interval, correlation coefficient, and significance between true (TR, Method 1a) and estimated (LER, Method 1b and AER, Method 1c) ratio of each tooth 83 表四 Mean difference, standard deviation, 95% confidence interval, and significance at each millimeter segment between true (TR, Method 1a) and estimated (LER, Method 1b and AER, Method 1c) ratio of each tooth 84 表五 方法二b(牙根長),二c(牙根投影面積),二d(牙根影像像素值)對於牙根表面積的估計誤差 85 表六 方法一d和方法一a的比較 86 表七 方法二d和方法一a的比較 87 表八 30位病患經由Pano與Tomo所測量的高度及經換算後之實際放大率 88 表九 環口放射線攝影所測得的高度(PAN)經30%放大率換算後之估計值(PAN/1.3)和斷層攝影之估計值(TOM/1.26)之比較。 90 表十 本論文當中所使用的人類解剖學標定點,線段,角度及其定義 92 表十一 不同期間,SSRO和IVRO兩組之間TRA,RIA,Condylion,B點,Pogonion,和Menton的變化 95 表十二 總上升枝角的變化(ΔTRA)和下顎向後重置量(B,pogonion,和menton)於各時期的相關係數。 98 表十三 ΔRIA和下顎向後重置量(B,pogonion,和menton)於各時期的相關係數。 100 表十四 Condylion位移變化和下顎向後重置量(B,pogonion,和menton)於各時期的相關係數。 101 表十五 手術造成TRA,RIA,和Condylion的變化,和術後回復的相關性。 102 表十六 兩側上升枝角的變化(T1到T2)和二種手術當中側向位移量(T1到T2)的相關係數。 104 表十七 T1-T3期間,SSRO和IVRO兩組之間軟組織輪廓的變化 105 表十八 立體影像和石膏模型測量的比較 107 表十九 結構光光點大小差異的比較 108 表二十 照相角度的影響 109 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 數位影像分析於臨床牙醫學的應用:第一部分:牙根表面積和齒槽骨高度的評估 第二部分:正顎手術後顎面軟硬組織的變化 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Digital Imaging Analysis in Clinical Dentistry: Part I. Evaluation of Root Surface Area and Alveolar Ridge Height
Part II. Maxillofacial Alteration after Orthognathic Surgery | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 100-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 郭彥彬,彭志綱,鄭逸琳,陳羿貞 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 牙根表面積,下顎上升枝矢向分裂截骨術,下顎上升枝垂直截骨術,立體攝影測量法,測顱分析,近心段夾角, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Tooth root face area,Sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO),Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO),Stereophotogrammetry,Radiographic cephalometry,Proximal segment angulation, | en |
dc.relation.page | 105 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2011-08-03 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 牙醫專業學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 臨床牙醫學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 臨床牙醫學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-100-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 3.32 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。