Auf unserer Website kommen verschiedene Cookies zum Einsatz: Technisch notwendige Cookies verwenden wir zu dem Zweck, Funktionen wie das Login oder einen Warenkorb zu ermöglichen. Optionale Cookies verwenden wir zu Marketing- und Optimierungszwecken, insbesondere um für Sie relevante und interessante Anzeigen bei den Plattformen von Meta (Facebook, Instagram) zu schalten. Optionale Cookies können Sie ablehnen. Mehr Informationen zur Datenerhebung und -verarbeitung finden Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.
Dr Piero Venezia graduated with honours in 1989 from the University of Bari, Italy with a degree in Dentistry.
In 2003, he specialized in Prosthetics at the University of Siena, Italy and in Prosthodontics at the University of Bari, Italy, where he has also lectured.
He is Lecturer of postgraduate programmes at the Universities of Siena, Genoa, Naples, Bari, Foggia, Catania and Rome, and Contract Professor in Dental Prosthodontics at the School of Dentistry of the University of Catania.
He is an active member of the AIOP (Accademia Italiana di Odontoiatria Protesica), IADDM (International Academy for Digital Dental Medicine), Digital Dental Society, DI&RA (Digital Implant & Restorative Academy), and Fellow of the ITI (International Team for Implantology).
Venezia has authored several scientific papers on national and international journals.
He currently works as a freelance professional in Bari, where he focuses his clinical and scientific activities on Prosthetics, Removable Prosthetics, and Implant Prosthetics.
Veranstaltungen
EAO Digital Days
Implantology: Beyond your expectations12. Okt. 2021 — 14. Okt. 2021online
Referenten: Enrico Agliardi, Alessandro Agnini, Andrea Mastrorosa Agnini, Mauricio Araujo, Goran Benic, Juan Blanco Carrión, Daniel Buser, Francesco Cairo, Raffaele Cavalcanti, Tali Chackartchi, Luca Cordaro, Jan Cosyn, Holger Essig, Vincent Fehmer, Stefan Fickl, Alberto Fonzar, Helena Francisco, German O. Gallucci, Ramin Gomez-Meda, Oscar Gonzalez-Martin, Robert Haas, Arndt Happe, Alexis Ioannidis, Ronald E. Jung, Niklaus P. Lang, Tomas Linkevičius, Iva Milinkovic, Sven Mühlemann, Katja Nelson, Sergio Piano, Michael A. Pikos, Bjarni E. Pjetursson, Marc Quirynen, Franck Renouard, Isabella Rocchietta, Dennis Rohner, Irena Sailer, Henning Schliephake, Shakeel Shahdad, Massimo Simion, Ali Tahmaseb, Hendrik Terheyden, Jochen Tunkel, Stefan Vandeweghe, Piero Venezia, Stijn Vervaeke, Martin Wanendeya, Georg Watzek, Giovanni Zucchelli
European Association for Osseintegration (EAO)
Zeitschriftenbeiträge dieses Autors
International Journal of Computerized Dentistry, Pre-Print
Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the segmentation accuracy of dentition testing four free-source semi-automatic software.
Materials and methods: A total of 20 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) were selected to perform semi-automatic segmentation of maxillary and mandibular dentition. The software tested were Invesalius, ITK-Snap, 3D Slicer and Seg3D. Each tooth model was also manually segmented (Mimics software) and set as the gold standard (GS) reference of the investigation. A specific 3D imaging technology was used to perform the superimposition between the teeth models obtained with semi-automatic software and the GS model, and to perform the surface-to-surface matching analysis. The accuracy of semi-automatic segmentation was evaluated calculating the volumetric mean differences (mean bias and limits of agreement) and the percentage of matching of the tooth models compared to the manual segmentation (GS). Qualitative assessments were performed using color-coded maps. All data were statistically analysed to perform software comparisons.
Result: Statistically significant differences were found in the volumetric and matching percentage data (p < 0,05). Invesalius was the most accurate software for 3D rendering of the dentition with a volumetric bias (Mimics) ranging from 4,59 mm3 to 85,79 mm3; instead, ITK-SNAP showed the higher volumetric bias, ranging from 30,22 mm3 to 319,83 mm3. The dis-matched area was mainly located at the radicular region of the teeth. Volumetric data showed excellent inter-software reliability with coefficient values ranging from 0,951 to 0,997.
Conclusio: Different semi-automatic software algorithms could generate different patterns of inaccuracy error in the segmentation of teeth.
Schlagwörter: 3D rendering, CBCT, cone-beam computed tomography, digital dentistry, digital orthodontics, oral surgery, orthodontics, segmentation
Purpose: To propose a method to measure the esthetics of the smile and to report its validation by means of an intra-rater and inter-rater agreement analysis.
Materials and methods: Ten variables were chosen as determinants for the esthetics of a smile: smile line and facial midline, tooth alignment, tooth deformity, tooth dischromy, gingival dischromy, gingival recession, gingival excess, gingival scars and diastema/missing papillae. One examiner consecutively selected seventy smile pictures, which were in the frontal view. Ten examiners, with different levels of clinical experience and specialties, applied the proposed assessment method twice on the selected pictures, independently and blindly. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Fleiss' kappa) statistics were performed to analyse the intra-rater and inter-rater agreement.
Results: Considering the cumulative assessment of the Smile Esthetic Index (SEI), the ICC value for the inter-rater agreement of the 10 examiners was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.51 to 0.72), representing a substantial agreement. Intra-rater agreement ranged from 0.86 to 0.99. Inter-rater agreement (Fleiss' kappa statistics) calculated for each variable ranged from 0.17 to 0.75.
Conclusion: The SEI was a reproducible method, to assess the esthetic component of the smile, useful for the diagnostic phase and for setting appropriate treatment plans.
Schlagwörter: classification, diagnosis, esthetics, index, smile