Prediction accuracy of Dolphin software for soft-tissue profile in Class I patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment

Published:October 30, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2021.10.001

      Highlights

      • Dolphin software can successfully predict the result of fixed orthodontic treatment in borderline extraction/nonextraction cases.
      • In extraction treatment, Dolphin simulated photographs had more-protruded lips than did the real photographs.
      • In nonextraction treatment, Dolphin simulated photographs showed a more inferiorly positioned lower lip than did the real photographs.
      • Differences between the simulated prediction photographs and the real photographs were small and clinically insignificant.

      ABSTRACT

      Background

      Simulation and prediction can facilitate the decision between an extraction versus nonextraction treatment plan. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of Dolphin Imaging software in predicting profile changes in class I borderline cases.

      Methods

      In this retrospective study, class I borderline patients (i.e., both extraction and nonextraction treatment plans were possible for them) aged 15–35 years were enrolled. All of the cephalometric analyses were done by Dolphin Imaging software, version 11.8 Premium. The initial cephalograms were superimposed on initial photographs. The final values for the 7 angular and linear landmarks of the upper and lower incisors were extracted from post-treatment cephalograms and inserted in the “Goals” tab of the Dolphin Imaging software. Post-treatment images of patients were simulated. Final post-treatment photographs were superimposed on the simulated pictures. The differences between the real and simulated pictures were calculated in relation to the reference lines. The P value was set at 0.05.

      Results

      A total of 70 patients (36 with tooth extraction, and 34 without tooth extraction) were included. In the extraction group, the horizontal position of both lips was predicted to be significantly more protruded than it actually was, whereas in the nonextraction group, the only difference between the simulated and actual results was that the vertical position of the lower lip, which was simulated as being more inferior than it actually was.

      Conclusions

      Despite the statistically significant differences between the real and simulated pictures, the differences were small and clinically insignificant. Prediction via Dolphin Imaging software can be an appropriate guide in extraction–nonextraction borderline cases.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      References

        • Kolokitha O-E
        • Chatzistavrou E.
        Factors influencing the accuracy of cephalometric prediction of soft tissue profile changes following orthognathic surgery.
        J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2012; 11: 82-90
        • Kolokitha O-E.
        Validity of a manual soft tissue profile prediction method following mandibular setback osteotomy.
        Eur J Dent. 2007; 1: 202-211
        • Leonardi R
        • Annunziata A
        • Licciardello V
        • Barbato E.
        Soft tissue changes following the extraction of premolars in nongrowing patients with bimaxillary protrusion. A systematic review.
        Angle Orthod. 2010; 80: 211-216
        • Almurtadha RH
        • Alhammadi MS
        • Fayed MMS
        • Abou-El-Ezz A
        • Halboub E.
        Changes in soft tissue profile after orthodontic treatment with and without extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2018; 18: 193-202
        • Soheilifar S
        • Soheilifar S
        • Ataei H
        • et al.
        Extraction versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment: Soft tissue profile changes in borderline class I patients.
        Dent Med Probl. 2020; 57: 275-283
        • Kouli A
        • Papagiannis A
        • Konstantoni N
        • Halazonetis DJ
        • Konstantonis D.
        A geometric morphometric evaluation of hard and soft tissue profile changes in borderline extraction versus non-extraction patients.
        Eur J Orthod. 2019; 41: 264-272
        • Drobocky OB
        • Smith RJ.
        Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars.
        Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1989; 95: 220-230
        • Al-Omiri MK
        Abu Alhaija ES. Factors affecting patient satisfaction after orthodontic treatment.
        Angle Orthod. 2006; 76: 422-431
        • Prabhakar R
        • Rajakumar P
        • Karthikeyan MK
        • Saravanan R
        • Vikram N
        • Reddy A.
        A hard tissue cephalometric comparative study between hand tracing and computerized tracing.
        J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2014; 6: S101-S106
        • Nadjmi N
        • Tehranchi A
        • Azami N
        • Saedi B
        • Mollemans W.
        Comparison of soft-tissue profiles in Le Fort I osteotomy patients with Dolphin and Maxilim softwares.
        Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2013; 144: 654-662
        • Oz AZ
        • Akcan CA
        • El H
        • Ciger S
        Evaluation of the soft tissue treatment simulation module of a computerized cephalometric program.
        Eur J Dent. 2014; 8: 229-233
        • Paquette DE
        • Beattie JR
        • Johnston Jr., LE
        A long-term comparison of nonextraction and premolar extraction edgewise therapy in “borderline” Class II patients.
        Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1992; 102: 1-14
        • Elshebiny T
        • Morcos S
        • Mohammad A
        • Quereshy F
        • Valiathan M.
        Accuracy of three-dimensional soft tissue prediction in orthognathic cases using Dolphin three-dimensional software.
        J Craniofac Surg. 2019; 30: 525-528
        • Abela S
        • Tewson D
        • Prince S
        • Sherriff M
        • Bister D.
        Precision of Le Fort I osteotomy: planning versus outcome. A multi-centre retrospective study.
        J Orthod. 2017; 44: 8-13
        • Rubio-Palau J
        • Prieto-Gundin A
        • Cazalla AA
        • et al.
        Three-dimensional planning in craniomaxillofacial surgery.
        Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 6: 281-286
        • Bardet I
        • Goudot P
        • Kerbrat J-B
        • Mauchamp O.
        [Surgery First: prediction for skeletal objectives through structural analysis. Comparison of Sassouni and Delaire analysis].
        Orthod Fr. 2019; 90 ([in French]): 37-54
        • Sinclair PM
        • Kilpelainen P
        • Phillips C
        • White Jr, RP
        • Rogers L
        • Sarver DM.
        The accuracy of video imaging in orthognathic surgery.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 107: 177-185
        • Upton PM
        • Sadowsky PL
        • Sarver DM
        • Heaven TJ.
        Evaluation of video imaging prediction in combined maxillary and mandibular orthognathic surgery.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 112: 656-665
        • Kazandjian S
        • Sameshima GT
        • Champlin T
        • Sinclair PM.
        Accuracy of video imaging for predicting the soft tissue profile after mandibular set-back surgery.
        Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1999; 115: 382-389
        • Pektas ZÖ
        • Kircelli BH
        • Cilasun Ü
        • Uckan S.
        The accuracy of computer-assisted surgical planning in soft tissue prediction following orthognathic surgery.
        Int J Med Robot. 2007; 3: 64-71
        • Zhang X
        • Mei L
        • Yan X
        • et al.
        Accuracy of computer-aided prediction in soft tissue changes after orthodontic treatment.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019; 156: 823-831
        • Larson BE
        • Vaubel CJ
        • Grünheid T.
        Effectiveness of computer-assisted orthodontic treatment technology to achieve predicted outcomes.
        Angle Orthod. 2013; 83: 557-562
        • Yasutomi H
        • Ioi H
        • Nakata S
        • Nakasima A
        • Counts AL.
        Effects of retraction of anterior teeth on horizontal and vertical lip positions in Japanese adults with the bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion.
        Orthod Waves. 2006; 65: 141-147
        • Yashwant VA
        • Ravi K
        • Arumugam E.
        Comparative evaluation of soft tissue changes in Class I borderline patients treated with extraction and nonextraction modalities.
        Dental Press J Orthod. 2016; 21: 50-59
        • Toth LR
        • McNamara Jr, JA
        Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Fränkel compared with an untreated Class II sample.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116: 597-609
        • Smith JD
        • Thomas PM
        • Proffit WR.
        A comparison of current prediction imaging programs.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 125: 527-536
        • Mankad B
        • Cisneros GJ
        • Freeman K
        • Eisig SB.
        Prediction accuracy of soft tissue profile in orthognathic surgery.
        Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1999; 14: 19-26
        • Abe N
        • Kuroda S
        • Furutani M
        • Tanaka E.
        Data-based prediction of soft tissue changes after orthognathic surgery: clinical assessment of new simulation software.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 44: 90-96
        • Power G
        • Breckon J
        • Sherriff M
        • McDonald F.
        Dolphin Imaging software: an analysis of the accuracy of cephalometric digitization and orthognathic prediction.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005; 34: 619-626