Evaluating SWAG and Its Validity When Compared to 3D Imagery of Secondarily Grafted Cleft Sites.

David S Briss,Ross E Long, John B Peterman,Jean Charles Doucet,John Daskalogiannakis,Ron R Hathaway,Ana M Mercado,Kathy Russell, Lexi Stauffer

The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association（2023）

Cited 0|Views6

No score

Abstract

2D SWAG systematically and non-significantly underestimated bone-fill. There was a significant correlation between 2D/3D methods. Bland-Altman analysis illustrated the similarity of the two methods. For comparisons of group (cleft treatment Centers') bone grafting outcomes, the 2D method may suffice as a proxy for the 3D method. However, with individual variation up to 40% in 2D estimates of actual 3D volume, 2D SWAG method cannot be used in place of 3D images.

Translated text

Key words

bone grafting, outcomes, computerized tomography, imaging

AI Read Science

Must-Reading Tree

Example

Generate MRT to find the research sequence of this paper

Chat Paper

Summary is being generated by the instructions you defined