Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

Intraoral scanning of the edentulous jaw without additional markers: An in vivo validation study on scanning precision and registration of an intraoral scan with a cone-beam computed tomography scan

  • Julie Tilly Deferm (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre) ;
  • Frank Baan (3D Laboratory, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre) ;
  • Johan Nijsink (3D Laboratory, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre) ;
  • Luc Verhamme (3D Laboratory, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre) ;
  • Thomas Maal (3D Laboratory, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre) ;
  • Gert Meijer (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre)
  • Received : 2022.07.22
  • Accepted : 2023.01.03
  • Published : 2023.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: A fully digital approach to oral prosthodontic rehabilitation requires the possibility of combining (i.e., registering) digital documentation from different sources. This becomes more complex in an edentulous jaw, as fixed dental markers to perform reliable registration are lacking. This validation study aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of 1) intraoral scanning and 2) soft tissue-based registration of an intraoral scan with a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan for a fully edentulous upper jaw. Materials and Methods: Two observers independently performed intraoral scans of the upper jaw in 14 fully edentulous patients. The palatal vault of both surface models was aligned, and the inter-observer variability was assessed by calculating the mean inter-surface distance at the level of the alveolar crest. Additionally, a CBCT scan of all patients was obtained and a soft tissue surface model was generated using patient-specific gray values. This CBCT soft tissue model was registered with the intraoral scans of both observers, and the intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) was calculated to evaluate the reproducibility of the registration method. Results: The mean inter-observer deviation when performing an intraoral scan of the fully edentulous upper jaw was 0.10±0.09 mm. The inter-observer agreement for the soft tissue-based registration method was excellent(ICC=0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.98). Conclusion: Even when teeth are lacking, intraoral scanning of the jaw and soft tissue-based registration of an intraoral scan with a CBCT scan can be performed with a high degree of precision.

Keywords

References

  1. Pikos MA, Magyar CW, Llop DR. Guided full-arch immediate-function treatment modality for the edentulous and terminal dentition patient. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2015; 36: 116-28. 
  2. Derksen W, Wismeijer D, Flugge T, Hassan B, Tahmaseb A. The accuracy of computer-guided implant surgery with tooth-supported, digitally designed drill guides based on CBCT and intraoral scanning. A prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019; 30: 1005-15.  https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13514
  3. Schubert O, Schweiger J, Stimmelmayr M, Nold E, Guth JF. Digital implant planning and guided implant surgery - workflow and reliability. Br Dent J 2019; 226: 101-8.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2019.44
  4. Besl PJ, McKay ND. A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 1992; 14: 239-56.  https://doi.org/10.1109/34.121791
  5. Deferm JT, Nijsink J, Baan F, Verhamme L, Meijer G, Maal T. Soft tissue-based registration of intraoral scan with cone beam computed tomography scan. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2022; 51: 263-8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2021.04.004
  6. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15: 155-63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
  7. Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hrobjartsson A, et al. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. Int J Nurs Stud 2011; 48: 661-71.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.016
  8. Gowd MS, Shankar T, Ranjan R, Singh A. Prosthetic consideration in implant-supported prosthesis: a review of literature. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2017; 7: S1-7.  https://doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_149_17
  9. Pesce P, Pera F, Setti P, Menini M. Precision and accuracy of a digital impression scanner in full-arch implant rehabilitation. Int J Prosthodont 2018; 31: 171-5.  https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5535
  10. Lo Russo L, Caradonna G, Troiano G, Salamini A, Guida L, Ciavarella D. Three-dimensional differences between intraoral scans and conventional impressions of edentulous jaws: a clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 123: 264-8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.04.004
  11. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 465-72.  https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12567
  12. Lee JH, Yun JH, Han JS, Yeo IL, Yoon HI. Repeatability of intraoral scanners for complete arch scan of partially edentulous dentitions: an in vitro study. J Clin Med 2019; 8: 1187. 
  13. Tasaka A, Uekubo Y, Mitsui T, Kasahara T, Takanashi T, Homma S, et al. Applying intraoral scanner to residual ridge in edentulous regions: in vitro evaluation of inter-operator validity to confirm trueness. BMC Oral Health 2019; 19: 264. 
  14. Costa V, Silva AS, Costa R, Barreiros P, Mendes J, Mendes JM. In vitro comparison of three intraoral scanners for implant-supported dental prostheses. Dent J(Basel) 2022; 10: 112. 
  15. Patzelt SB, Vonau S, Stampf S, Att W. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. J Am Dent Assoc 2013; 144: 914-20.  https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0209
  16. Fang JH, An X, Jeong SM, Choi BH. Digital intraoral scanning technique for edentulous jaws. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119: 733-5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.008
  17. Iturrate M, Minguez R, Pradies G, Solaberrieta E. Obtaining reliable intraoral digital scans for an implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis: a dental technique. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121: 237-41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.03.008
  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; 19: 101. 
  19. Lee JH. Improved digital impressions of edentulous areas. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117: 448-9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.019
  20. Kim JE, Amelya A, Shin Y, Shim JS. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117: 755-61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.016
  21. Arcuri L, Lorenzi C, Cecchetti F, Germano F, Spuntarelli M, Barlattani A. Full digital workflow for implant-prosthetic rehabilitations: a case report. Oral Implantol(Rome) 2016; 8: 114-21. 
  22. Lin CC, Wu CZ, Huang MS, Huang CF, Cheng HC, Wang DP. Fully digital workflow for planning static guided implant surgery: a prospective accuracy study. J Clin Med 2020; 9: 980. 
  23. Deferm JT, Schreurs R, Baan F, Bruggink R, Merkx MA, Xi T, et al. Validation of 3D documentation of palatal soft tissue shape, color, and irregularity with intraoral scanning. Clin Oral Investig 2018; 22: 1303-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2198-8