Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

Assessment of the accuracy of laser-scanned models and 3-dimensional rendered cone-beam computed tomographic images compared to digital caliper measurements on plaster casts

  • Yousefi, Faezeh (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Shokri, Abbas (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Zahedi, Foozie (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Farhadian, Maryam (Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Research Center for Health Sciences, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2021.06.07
  • Accepted : 2021.08.21
  • Published : 2021.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigated the accuracy of laser-scanned models and 3-dimensional(3D) rendered cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) compared to the gold standard (plaster casts) for linear measurements on dental arches. Materials and Methods: CBCT scans and plaster models from 30 patients were retrieved. Plaster models were scanned by an Emerald laser scanner (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland). Sixteen different measurements, encompassing the mesiodistal width of teeth and both arches' length and width, were calculated using various landmarks. Linear measurements were made on laser-scanned models using Autodesk Meshmixer software v. 3.0 (Autodesk, Mill Valley, CA, USA), on 3D-rendered CBCT models using OnDemand 3D v. 1.0 (Cybermed, Seoul, Korea) and on plaster casts by a digital caliper. Descriptive statistics, the paired t-test, and intra- and inter-class correlation coefficients were used to analyze the data. Results: There were statistically significant differences between some measurements on plaster casts and laser-scanned or 3D-rendered CBCT models (P<0.05). Molar mesiodistal width and mandibular anterior arch width deviated significantly different from the gold standard in both methods. The largest mean differences of laser-scanned and 3D-rendered CBCT models compared to the gold standard were 0.12±0.23 mm and 0.42±0.53 mm, respectively. Most of the mean differences were not clinically significant. The intra- and inter-class correlation results were acceptable for all measurements(>0.830) and between observers(>0.801). Conclusion: The 3D-rendered CBCT images and laser-scanned models were useful and accurate alternatives to conventional plaster models. They could be used for clinical purposes in orthodontics and prostheses.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was a part of a research project in maxillofacial radiology (project number: 9810037323) that was supported by the Vice-Chancellor of Research and Technology, Hamedan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran.

References

  1. Camardella LT, Ongkosuwito EM, Penning EW, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Vilella OV, Breuning KH. Accuracy and reliability of measurements performed using two different software programs on digital models generated using laser and computed tomography plaster model scanners. Korean J Orthod 2020; 50: 13-25. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2020.50.1.13
  2. De Luca Canto G, Pacheco-Pereira C, Lagravere MO, FloresMir C, Major PW. Intra-arch dimensional measurement validity of laser-scanned digital dental models compared with the original plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2015; 18: 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12068
  3. Camardella LT, Breuning H, de Vasconcellos Vilella O. Accuracy and reproducibility of measurements on plaster models and digital models created using an intraoral scanner. J Orofac Orthop 2017; 78: 211-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0070-0
  4. Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011; 14: 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01503.x
  5. Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Tutein Nolthenius HE, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 143: 140-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.06.018
  6. Ko HC, Liu W, Hou D, Torkan S, Spiekerman C, Huang GJ. Agreement of treatment recommendations based on digital vs plaster dental models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2019; 155: 135-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.03.018
  7. Engelbrecht WP, Fourie Z, Damstra J, Gerrits PO, Ren Y. The influence of the segmentation process on 3D measurements from cone beam computed tomography-derived surface models. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17: 1919-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0881-3
  8. Poleti ML, Fernandes TM, Moretti MR, Puzinato LR, Slaviero TV, Rubira-Bullen IR. Reliability and accuracy of automatic segmentation of mandibular 3D models on linear measurements. Clin Oral Investig (in press).
  9. Kim J, Heo G, Lagravere MO. Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2014; 84: 443-50. https://doi.org/10.2319/051213-365.1
  10. El-Zanaty HM, El-Beialy AR, Abou El-Ezz AM, Attia KH, El-Bialy AR, Mostafa YA. Three-dimensional dental measurements: an alternative to plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 259-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.030
  11. 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
  12. Luu NS, Nikolcheva LG, Retrouvey JM, Flores-Mir C, El-Bialy T, Carey JP, et al. Linear measurements using virtual study models. Angle Orthod 2012; 82: 1098-106. https://doi.org/10.2319/110311-681.1
  13. Sfondrini MF, Gandini P, Malfatto M, Di Corato F, Trovati F, Scribante A. Computerized casts for orthodontic purpose using powder-free intraoral scanners: accuracy, execution time, and patient feedback. Biomed Res Int 2018; 2018: 4103232
  14. Kim J, Lagravere MO. Accuracy of Bolton analysis measured in laser scanned digital models compared with plaster models (gold standard) and cone-beam computer tomography images. Korean J Orthod 2016; 46: 13-9. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.13
  15. Olszewski R, Szyper-Szczurowska J, Opach M, Bednarczyk P, Zapala J, Szczepanik S. Accuracy of digital dental models using the low-cost DAVID laser scanner. Adv Clin Exp Med 2019; 28: 1647-56. https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/110318
  16. Reuschl RP, Heuer W, Stiesch M, Wenzel D, Dittmer MP. Reliability and validity of measurements on digital study models and plaster models. Eur J Orthod 2016; 38: 22-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv001
  17. Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov AI. A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod 2008; 35: 191-201. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531207225022626
  18. Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL. Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 149: 161-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.06.029
  19. Naidu D, Scott J, Ong D, Ho CT. Validity, reliability and reproducibility of three methods used to measure tooth widths for bolton analyses. Aust Orthod J 2009; 25: 97-103.
  20. Massaro C, Losada C, Cevidanes L, Yatabe M, Garib D, Lauris JR, et al. Comparison of linear and angular changes assessed in digital dental models and cone-beam computed tomography. Orthod Craniofac Res 2020; 23: 118-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12352
  21. Lagravere MO, Carey J, Toogood RW, Major PW. Threedimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 112-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.08.024
  22. Baumgaertel S, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Hans MG. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 19-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.09.016
  23. Watanabe-Kanno GA, Abrao J, Miasiro Junior H, Sanchez-Ayala A, Lagravere MO. Reproducibility, reliability and validity of measurements obtained from Cecile3 digital models. Braz Oral Res 2009; 23: 288-95. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242009000300011
  24. Tarazona B, Llamas JM, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes V. A comparison between dental measurements taken from CBCT models and those taken from a digital method. Eur J Orthod 2013; 35: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr005
  25. Ye N, Jian F, Xue J, Wang S, Liao L, Huang W, et al. Accuracy of in-vitro tooth volumetric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 142: 879-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.05.020
  26. Creed B, Kau CH, English JD, Xia JJ, Lee RP. A comparison of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained from cone beam computerized tomography images and digital models. Semin Orthod 2011; 17: 49-56. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2010.08.010
  27. Kau CH, Littlefield J, Rainy N, Nguyen JT, Creed B. Evaluation of CBCT digital models and traditional models using the Little's Index. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 435-9. https://doi.org/10.2319/083109-491.1
  28. Lightheart KG, English JD, Kau CH, Akyalcin S, Bussa HI Jr, McGrory KR, et al. Surface analysis of study models generated from OrthoCAD and cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 141: 686-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.12.019
  29. Ballrick JW, Palomo JM, Ruch E, Amberman BD, Hans MG. Image distortion and spatial resolution of a commercially available cone-beam computed tomography machine. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 573-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.025