Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Accuracy of virtual models in the assessment of maxillary defects

  • Kamburoglu, Kivanc (Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University) ;
  • Kursun, Sebnem (Division of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Ministry of Health, Oral and Dental Health Center) ;
  • Kilic, Cenk (Department of Anatomy, Gulhane Military Medical Academy) ;
  • Ozen, Tuncer (Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Dental Science Center, Gulhane Military Medical Academy)
  • Received : 2014.12.07
  • Accepted : 2015.01.18
  • Published : 2015.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the reliability of measurements performed on three-dimensional (3D) virtual models of maxillary defects obtained using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D optical scanning. Materials and Methods: Mechanical cavities simulating maxillary defects were prepared on the hard palate of nine cadavers. Images were obtained using a CBCT unit at three different fields-of-views (FOVs) and voxel sizes: 1) $60{\times}60mm$ FOV, $0.125mm^3$ ($FOV_{60}$); 2) $80{\times}80mm$ FOV, $0.160mm^3$ ($FOV_{80}$); and 3) $100{\times}100mm$ FOV, $0.250mm^3$ ($FOV_{100}$). Superimposition of the images was performed using software called VRMesh Design. Automated volume measurements were conducted, and differences between surfaces were demonstrated. Silicon impressions obtained from the defects were also scanned with a 3D optical scanner. Virtual models obtained using VRMesh Design were compared with impressions obtained by scanning silicon models. Gold standard volumes of the impression models were then compared with CBCT and 3D scanner measurements. Further, the general linear model was used, and the significance was set to p=0.05. Results: A comparison of the results obtained by the observers and methods revealed the p values to be smaller than 0.05, suggesting that the measurement variations were caused by both methods and observers along with the different cadaver specimens used. Further, the 3D scanner measurements were closer to the gold standard measurements when compared to the CBCT measurements. Conclusion: In the assessment of artificially created maxillary defects, the 3D scanner measurements were more accurate than the CBCT measurements.

Keywords

References

  1. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014; 14: 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-10
  2. Lethaus B, Kessler P, Boeckman R, Poort LJ, Tolba R. Reconstruction of a maxillary defect with a fibula graft and titanium mesh using CAD/CAM techniques. Head Face Med 2010; 6: 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-6-16
  3. Angelopoulos C, Scarfe WC, Farman AG. A comparison of maxillofacial CBCT and medical CT. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2012; 20: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cxom.2011.12.008
  4. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Levin MD, Gane D. Essentials of maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography. Alpha Omegan 2010; 103: 62-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aodf.2010.04.001
  5. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am 2008; 52: 707-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005
  6. Scarfe WC, Li Z, Aboelmaaty W, Scott SA, Farman AG. Maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: essence, elements and steps to interpretation. Aust Dent J 2012; 57 Suppl 1: 46-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01657.x
  7. Kamegawa M, Nakamura M, Fukui Y, Tsutsumi S, Hojo M. Direct 3-D morphological measurements of silicone rubber impression using micro-focus X-ray CT. Dent Mater J 2010; 29: 68-74. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2009-021
  8. Boldt F, Weinzierl C, Hertrich K, Hirschfelder U. Comparison of the spatial landmark scatter of various 3D digitalization methods. J Orofac Orthop 2009; 70: 247-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-009-0902-2
  9. Barone S, Paoli A, Razionale AV. Creation of 3D multi-body orthodontic models by using independent imaging sensors. Sensors (Basel) 2013; 13: 2033-50. https://doi.org/10.3390/s130202033
  10. Motohashi N, Kuroda T. A 3D computer-aided design system applied to diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. Eur J Orthod 1999; 21: 263-74. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/21.3.263
  11. Lu P, Li Z, Wang Y, Chen J, Zhao J. The research and development of noncontact 3-D laser dental model measuring and analyzing system. Chin J Dent Res 2000; 3: 7-14.
  12. Hirogaki Y, Sohmura T, Satoh H, Takahashi J, Takada K. Complete 3-D reconstruction of dental cast shape using perceptual grouping. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2001; 20: 1093-101. https://doi.org/10.1109/42.959306
  13. Agbaje JO, Jacobs R, Michiels K, Abu-Ta'a M, van Steenberghe D. Bone healing after dental extractions in irradiated patients: a pilot study on a novel technique for volume assessment of healing tooth sockets. Clin Oral Investig 2009; 13: 257-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-008-0231-7
  14. Turbush SK, Turkyilmaz I. Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2012; 108: 181-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60145-0
  15. Pohlenz P, Blessmann M, Blake F, Gbara A, Schmelzle R, Heiland M. Major mandibular surgical procedures as an indication for intraoperative imaging. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66: 324-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2007.03.032
  16. Katsumata A, Hirukawa A, Okumura S, Naitoh M, Fujishita M, Ariji E, et al. Effects of image artifacts on gray-value density in limited-volume cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 104: 829-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.12.005
  17. Kwong JC, Palomo JM, Landers MA, Figueroa A, Hans MG. Image quality produced by different cone-beam computed tomography settings. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 317-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.02.053
  18. Hassan B, Couto Souza P, Jacobs R, de Azambuja Berti S, van der Stelt P. Influence of scanning and reconstruction parameters on quality of three-dimensional surface models of the dental arches from cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig 2010; 14: 303-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0291-3
  19. Sezgin OS, Kayipmaz S, Sahin B. The effect of slice thickness on the assessment of bone defect volumes by the Cavalieri principle using cone beam computed tomography. J Digit Imaging 2013; 26: 115-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9480-8
  20. Emirzeoglu M, Sahin B, Selcuk MB, Kaplan S. The effects of section thickness on the estimation of liver volume by the Cavalieri principle using computed tomography images. Eur J Radiol 2005; 56: 391-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.04.008
  21. Sahin B, Mazonakis M, Akan H, Kaplan S, Bek Y. Dependence of computed tomography volume measurements upon section thickness: an application to human dry skulls. Clin Anat 2008; 21: 479-85. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.20664
  22. Loubele M, Maes F, Schutyser F, Marchal G, Jacobs R, Suetens P. Assessment of bone segmentation quality of conebeam CT versus multislice spiral CT: a pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 102: 225-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.10.039
  23. Pinsky HM, Dyda S, Pinsky RW, Misch KA, Sarment DP. Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements using conebeam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 410-6. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/20987648
  24. Ahlowalia MS, Patel S, Anwar HM, Cama G, Austin RS, Wilson R, et al. Accuracy of CBCT for volumetric measurement of simulated periapical lesions. Int Endod J 2013; 46: 538-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12023
  25. Weissheimer A, Menezes LM, Sameshima GT, Enciso R, Pham J, Grauer D. Imaging software accuracy for 3-dimensional analysis of the upper airway. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 142: 801-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.07.015

Cited by

  1. Computed Tomography versus Optical Scanning: A Comparison of Different Methods of 3D Data Acquisition for Tooth Replication vol.2019, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4985121