Surface Registration Accuracy of Clinically Obtained Intraoral Optical Scans with Manually Threshold Segmented CBCT Data

Krzysztof Andruch^1, and Mariusz Malecki^1,

¹Department of Dental Prosthetic, Medical University of Lodz, Poland

Cite this paper:
Krzysztof Andruch and Mariusz Malecki. Surface Registration Accuracy of Clinically Obtained Intraoral Optical Scans with Manually Threshold Segmented CBCT Data. International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research. 2020; 8(1):7-16. doi: 10.12691/ijdsr-8-1-2

Abstract

Combining CBCT imaging and intraoral scans with an intention to prepare comprehensive treatment plans is common in clinical practice. Segmentation and superimposition of models is indispensable when planning complicated prosthetic reconstructions. The authors of this publication evaluated registration discrepancies of virtual dental arch models obtained by means of CBCT imaging at different segmentation thresholds with intraoral dental scans. For comparisons, intraoral digital scans and volumetric CBCT scans of the upper and lower jaw were used in randomly selected patients. The mean distance, Gaussian mean and standard deviation from the Gaussian mean as registration inconsistencies between the combined models were measured and subjected to a statistical analysis. The results showed that the registration of superimposed models may be affected by errors of up to 300 microns in the case of full dental arches. The statistical analysis proved that there was no correlation between the segmentation threshold and the quantitative variables studied (e.g. mean distance, Gaussian mean and standard deviation from the Gaussian mean). The results of this study indicate that CBCT data and full arch optical scans can be superimposed and successfully applied under clinical conditions within the accepted error.

Keywords:
CBCT threshold segmentation intraoral full arch scan STL registration accuracy

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Figures

References:

[1]	Honey OB, Scarfe WC, Hilgers MJ, Klueber K, Silveira AM, Haskell BS, Farman AG. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography imaging of the temporomandibular joint: Comparisons with panoramic radiology and linear tomography. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2007 Oct; 132(4): 429-38.
[2]	Lascala CA, Panella J, Marques MM. Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom). Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2004 Sep; 33(5): 291-4.
[3]	Van Dessel J, Nicolielo LF, Huang Y, Coudyzer W, Salmon B, Lambrichts I, Jacobs R.Accuracy and reliability of different cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices for structural analysis of alveolar bone in comparison with multislice CT and micro-CT. European Journal of Oral Implantology. 2017; 10(1): 95-105.
[4]	Juneja R, Gupta A, Singh S, Kumar V, Role of Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Dentistry. (2016). Journal of Biosensors, Biomarkers and Diagnostics 1(1): 1-8.
[5]	Prashant P Jaju, Sushma P Jaju, Clinical utility of dental cone-beam computed tomography: current perspectives. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry 2014; 6: 29-43.
[6]	Hegde S, Ajila V, Kamath JS, Babu S, Pillai DS, Nair S M. Importance of cone-beam computed tomography in dentistry: An update. SRM J Res Dent Sci. 2018; 9: 186-90.
[7]	Evain, T., Ripoche, X., Atif, J., & Bloch, I. (2017). Semi-automatic teeth segmentation in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography by graph-cut with statistical shape priors. 2017 IEEE 14th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2017), 1197-1200.
[8]	Li Wang, Yaozong Gao, Feng Shi, Gang Li, Ken-Chung Chen, Zhen Tang, James J. Xia, Dinggang Shen, Automated segmentation of dental CBCT image with prior-guided sequential random forests. Med Phys. 2016 Jan; 43(1): 336-346.
[9]	Schulze, R., Heil, U., Gross, D., Bruellmann, D. D., Dranischnikow, E., Schwanecke, U., & Schoemer, E. (2011). Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dento maxillo facial radiology, 40(5), 265-273.
[10]	Fakhar, Hooriyeh Bashizade et al. “Effects of artifact removal on cone-beam computed tomography images.” Dental research journal vol. 15,2 (2018): 89-94.
[11]	Flügge T, Derksen W, Te Poel J, Hassan B, Nelson K, Wismeijer D. Registration of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral surface scans - Aprerequisite for guided implant surgery with CAD/CAM drilling guides. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Sep; 28(9):1113-1118.
[12]	Suebnukarn, Siriwan & Haddawy, Peter & Dailey, Matthew & Cao, Dinh. (2008). Interactive Segmentation and Three-Dimension Reconstruction for Cone-Beam Computed-Tomography Images. NECTEC Technical Journal. 8. (2008).
[13]	Vallaeys K, Kacem A, Legoux H, Le Tenier M, Hamitouche C, Arbab-Chirani R. 3D dento-maxillary osteolytic lesion and active contour segmentation pilot study in CBCT: semi-automatic vs manual methods. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 44(8).
[14]	Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017 Dec 12; 17(1): 149.
[15]	Kattadiyil MT, Mursic Z, AlRumaih H, Goodacre CJ. Intraoral scanning of hard and soft tissues for partial removable dental prosthesis fabrication. J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Sep; 112(3): 444-8.
[16]	Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review of Influencing Factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018 Aug 30; 26(3): 101-121.
[17]	Treesh JC, Liacouras PC, Taft RM, Brooks DI, Raiciulescu S, Ellert DO, Grant GT, Ye L. Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Sep; 120(3): 382-388.
[18]	Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Imburgia M, Mangano C, Admakin O. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2019 Jun 6; 19(1): 101.
[19]	Akyalcin S, Dyer DJ, English JD, Sar C. Comparison of 3-dimensional dental models from different sources: diagnostic accuracy and surface registration analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Dec; 144(6): 831-7.
[20]	Hyuk-Jin Kwon, Kack-Kyun Kim, Won-Jin Yi. Comparison of digital models generated from three-dimensional optical scanner and cone beam computed tomography. Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science 2016; 32(1): 60-69.
[21]	Flügge T, Derksen W, Te Poel J, Hassan B, Nelson K, Wismeijer D. Registration of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral surface scans - Aprerequisite for guided implant surgery with CAD/CAM drilling guides. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Sep; 28(9): 1113-1118.
[22]	Tang T, Liao L, Huang Z, Gu X, Zhang X. Accuracy of the evaluation of implant position using a completely digital registration method compared with a radiographic method. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry Dent. 2019 Apr 9.n.pag.
[23]	George, D. and Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference 17.0 Update. 10th Edition, Pearson, Boston.
[24]	van Eijnatten M, Koivisto J, Karhu K, Forouzanfar T, Wolff J. The impact of manual threshold selection in medical additive manufacturing. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2017 Apr; 12(4): 607-615.
[25]	Huotilainen E, Jaanimets R, Valášek J, Marcián P, Salmi M, Tuomi J, Mäkitie A,Wolff J. Inaccuracies in additive manufactured medical skull models caused by the DICOM to STL conversion process. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Jul; 42(5): e259-65.
[26]	van Eijnatten, Maureen & Berger, Ferco & Graaf, Pim & Koivisto, Juha & Forouzanfar, Tymour & Wolff, Jan. (2017). Influence of CT parameters on STL model accuracy. Rapid Prototyping Journal. 23.