Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

10-05-2022 | Digital Volume Tomography | Original Article

Evaluation of different registration methods and dental restorations on the registration duration and accuracy of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral scans: a retrospective clinical study

Authors: Xing-Yu Piao, Ji-Man Park, Hannah Kim, Youngjun Kim, June-Sung Shim

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 9/2022

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate whether the accuracy and duration of registration for cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intraoral scans differ according to the method of registration and ratio of dental restorations to natural teeth.

Materials and methods

CBCT data and intraoral scans of eligible patients were grouped as follows according to the ratio of the number of dental restorations to the number of natural teeth (N): group 1, N = 0%; group 2, 0% < N < 50%; group 3, 50% ≤ N < 100%; and group 4, 100% ≤ N. Marker-free registration was performed with a deep learning-based platform and four implant planning software with different registration methods (two point-based, one surface-based, and one manual registration software) by a single operator, and the time consumption was recorded. Registration accuracy was evaluated by measuring the distances between the three-dimensional models of CBCT data and intraoral scans.

Results

A total of 36 patients, one jaw per patient, were enrolled. Although registration accuracy was similar, the time consumed for registration significantly differed for the different methods. The deep learning-based registration method consumed the least time. Greater proportions of dental restorations significantly reduced the registration accuracy for semi-automatic and deep learning-based methods and reduced the time consumed for semi-automatic registration.

Conclusions

No superiority in registration accuracy was found. The proportion of dental restorations significantly affects the accuracy and duration of registration for CBCT data and intraoral scans.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: KCT0006710

Clinical relevance

Registration accuracy for virtual implant planning decreases when the proportion of dental restorations increases regardless of registration methods.

Vercruyssen M, Laleman I, Jacobs R, Quirynen M (2015) Computer-supported implant planning and guided surgery: a narrative review. Clin Oral Implants Res 26(Suppl 11):69–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12638CrossRefPubMed

Vercruyssen M, Fortin T, Widmann G, Jacobs R, MJP Q (2014) Different techniques of static/dynamic guided implant surgery: modalities and indications. Periodontol 2000 66:214–227CrossRef

Jung RE, Schneider D, Ganeles J, Wismeijer D, Zwahlen M, Hammerle C, Tahmaseb (2009) Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24(Suppl):92–109PubMed

D'haese J, Ackhurst J, Wismeijer D, De Bruyn H, AJP T (2017) Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery. Periodontol 2000 73:121–133CrossRef

Tatakis DN, Chien HH, Parashis AO (2019) Guided implant surgery risks and their prevention. Periodontol 2000 81:194–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12292CrossRefPubMed

Ozan O, Turkyilmaz I, Ersoy AE, McGlumphy EA, Rosenstiel SF (2009) Clinical accuracy of 3 different types of computed tomography-derived stereolithographic surgical guides in implant placement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:394–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.09.033CrossRefPubMed

Henprasert P, Dawson DV, El-Kerdani T, Song X, Couso-Queiruga E, Holloway JA (2020) Comparison of the accuracy of implant position using surgical guides fabricated by additive and subtractive techniques. J Prosthodont 29(6):534–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13161CrossRefPubMed

Fitzpatrick JM, Hill DLG, Maurer CR (2000) Handbook of medical imaging. SPIE, Bellingham

Klinke T, Daboul A, Maron J, Gredes T, Puls R, Jaghsi A, Biffar R (2012) Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography caused by dental materials. PLoS ONE 7:e31766. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031766CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Flügge T, Derksen W, te Poel J, Hassan B, Nelson K, Wismeijer D (2017) Registration of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral surface scans - A prerequisite for guided implant surgery with CAD/CAM drilling guides. Clin Oral Implants Res 28:1113–1118. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12925CrossRefPubMed

11.

Dreiseidler T, Neugebauer J, Ritter L, Lingohr T, Rothamel D, Mischkowski RA, Zoller JE (2009) Accuracy of a newly developed integrated system for dental implant planning. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:1191–1199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01764.xCrossRefPubMed

12.

Nkenke E, Zachow S, Benz M, Maier T, Veit K, Kramer M, Benz S, Hausler G, Neukam FW, Lell M (2004) Fusion of computed tomography data and optical 3D images of the dentition for streak artefact correction in the simulation of orthognathic surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:226–232. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/27071199CrossRefPubMed

13.

Park SW, Yoon RG, Lee H, Lee HJ, Choi YD, Lee DH (2020) Impacts of thresholds of gray value for cone-beam computed tomography 3D reconstruction on the accuracy of image matching with optical scan. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176375

14.

Jamjoom FZ, Kim DG, Lee DJ, McGlumphy EA, Yilmaz B (2018) Effect of length and location of edentulous area on the accuracy of prosthetic treatment plan incorporation into cone-beam computed tomography scans. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 20:300–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12582CrossRefPubMed

15.

Choi Y-S, Kim M-K, Lee J-W, Kang S-H (2013) Impact of the number of registration points for replacement of three-dimensional computed tomography images in dental areas using three-dimensional light-scanned images of dental models. Oral Radiology 30:32–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-013-0136-2CrossRef

16.

Park JH, Hwang CJ, Choi YJ, Houschyar KS, Yu JH, Bae SY, Cha JY (2020) Registration of digital dental models and cone-beam computed tomography images using 3-dimensional planning software: comparison of the accuracy according to scanning methods and software. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 157:843–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.12.013CrossRefPubMed

17.

Swennen GR, Mommaerts MY, Abeloos J, De Clercq C, Lamoral P, Neyt N, Casselman J, Schutyser F (2009) A cone-beam CT based technique to augment the 3D virtual skull model with a detailed dental surface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 38:48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2008.11.006CrossRefPubMed

18.

Xia JJ, Gateno J, Teichgraeber JF (2009) New clinical protocol to evaluate craniomaxillofacial deformity and plan surgical correction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:2093–2106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.04.057CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Gateno J, Xia J, Teichgraeber JF, Rosen A (2003) A new technique for the creation of a computerized composite skull model. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 61:222–227. https://doi.org/10.1053/joms.2003.50033CrossRefPubMed

20.

Han YT, Lin WC, Fan FY, Chen CL, Lin CC, Cheng HC (2021) Comparison of dental surface image registration and fiducial marker registration: an in vivo accuracy study of static computer-assisted implant surgery. J Clin Med 10(18):4183. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10184183CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Jamjoom FZ, Yilmaz B, Johnston WM (2019) Impact of number of registration points on the positional accuracy of a prosthetic treatment plan incorporated into a cone beam computed tomography scan by surface scan registration: An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 30:826–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13490CrossRefPubMed

22.

Jamjoom FZ, Kim DG, McGlumphy EA, Lee DJ, Yilmaz B (2018) Positional accuracy of a prosthetic treatment plan incorporated into a cone beam computed tomography scan using surface scan registration. J Prosthet Dent 120:367–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.11.019CrossRefPubMed

23.

Woo S, Lee S, Chae J, Rim J, Lee J, Seo J, Lee C (2019) Automatic matching of computed tomography and stereolithography data. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 175:215–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2019.04.003CrossRefPubMed

24.

Chung M, Lee J, Song W, Song Y, Yang IH, Lee J, Shin YG (2020) Automatic registration between dental cone-beam CT and scanned surface via deep pose regression neural networks and clustered similarities. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 39:3900–3909. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2020.3007520CrossRefPubMed

25.

Jung K, Jung S, Hwang I, Kim T, Chang M (2018) Registration of dental tomographic volume data and scan surface data using dynamic segmentation. Appl Sci 8(10):1762. https://doi.org/10.3390/app8101762CrossRef

26.

Hung K, Montalvao C, Tanaka R, Kawai T, Bornstein MM (2020) The use and performance of artificial intelligence applications in dental and maxillofacial radiology: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 49:20190107. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20190107CrossRefPubMed

27.

Schnutenhaus S, Gröller S, Luthardt RG, Rudolph H (2018) Accuracy of the match between cone beam computed tomography and model scan data in template-guided implant planning: a prospective controlled clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 20(4):541–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12614CrossRefPubMed

28.

Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nystrom I, Ryden J, Thor A (2018) Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: a novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent 69:110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.006CrossRefPubMed

29.

Tomita Y, Uechi J, Konno M, Sasamoto S, Iijima M, Mizoguchi I (2018) Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning. Dent Mater J 37:628–633. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-208CrossRefPubMed

30.

Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D (2013) Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 17:1201–1208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0CrossRefPubMed

31.

Kim RJ, Park JM, Shim JS (2018) Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: a qualitative and quantitative evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 120:895–903 e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.035CrossRefPubMed

32.

Michelinakis G, Apostolakis D, Tsagarakis A, Kourakis G, Pavlakis E (2020) A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: a single-blinded in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 124:581–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.10.023CrossRefPubMed

33.

Noh H, Nabha W, Cho JH, Hwang HS (2011) Registration accuracy in the integration of laser-scanned dental images into maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 140:585–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.04.018CrossRefPubMed

34.

Woo HW, Mai HN, Lee DH (2020) Comparison of the accuracy of image registration methods for merging optical scan and radiographic data in edentulous jaws. J Prosthodont 29(8):707–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13216CrossRefPubMed

35.

Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A (2013) Impact of voxel size variation on CBCT-based diagnostic outcome in dentistry: a systematic review. J Digit Imaging 26:813–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9562-7CrossRefPubMed

36.

Ye N, Long H, Xue J, Wang S, Yang X, Lai W (2014) Integration accuracy of laser-scanned dental models into maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography images of different voxel sizes with different segmentation threshold settings. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 117:780–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2014.02.022CrossRefPubMed

37.

Becker K, Wilmes B, Grandjean C, Drescher D (2018) Impact of manual control point selection accuracy on automated surface matching of digital dental models. Clin Oral Investig 22:801–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2155-6CrossRefPubMed

38.

Lin X, Chen T, Liu J, Jiang T, Yu D, Shen SG (2015) Point-based superimposition of a digital dental model on to a three-dimensional computed tomographic skull: an accuracy study in vitro. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53:28–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.09.007CrossRefPubMed

Title: Evaluation of different registration methods and dental restorations on the registration duration and accuracy of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral scans: a retrospective clinical study
Authors: Xing-Yu Piao
Ji-Man Park
Hannah Kim
Youngjun Kim
June-Sung Shim
Publication date: 10-05-2022
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Digital Volume Tomography
Dental Restoration
Digital Volume Tomography
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 9/2022
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04533-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Evaluation of different registration methods and dental restorations on the registration duration and accuracy of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral scans: a retrospective clinical study

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical trial registration

Clinical relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical trial registration

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2022

Influence of periodontal inflammation on tryptophan-kynurenine metabolism: a cross-sectional study

Evaluation of the changes in physical properties and mineral content of enamel exposed to radiation after treating with remineralization agent

Digital versus conventional full-arch impressions in linear and 3D accuracy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies

Attenuation of near-ultraviolet, visible and near-infrared light in sound and carious human enamel and dentin

Prevalence of dens invaginatus and its association with periapical lesions in a Western Indian population—a study using cone-beam computed tomography

Tongue cancer following hematopoietic cell transplantation for Fanconi anemia