The influence of the segmentation process on 3D measurements from cone beam computed tomography-derived surface models

To compare the accuracy of linear and angular measurements between cephalometric and anatomic landmarks on surface models derived from 3D cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with two different segmentation protocols was the aim of this study. CBCT scans were made of cadaver heads and 3D surface models were created of the mandible using two different segmentation protocols. A high-resolution laser surface scanner was used to make a 3D model of the macerated mandibles. Twenty linear measurements at 15 anatomic and cephalometric landmarks between the laser surface scan and the 3D models generated from the two segmentation protocols (commercial segmentation (CS) and doctor’s segmentation (DS) groups) were measured. The interobserver agreement for all the measurements of the all three techniques was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.97–1.00). The results are for both groups very accurate, but only for the measurements on the condyle and lingual part of the mandible, the measurements in the CS group is slightly more accurate than the DS group. 3D surface models produced by CBCT are very accurate but slightly inferior to reality when threshold-based methods are used. Differences in the segmentation process resulted in significant clinical differences between the measurements. Care has to be taken when drawing conclusions from measurements and comparisons made from different segmentations, especially at the condylar region and the lingual side of the mandible.

[1]  Reinhilde Jacobs,et al.  State-of-the-art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement , 2006, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[2]  Erwin Keeve,et al.  Geometric accuracy of a newly developed cone-beam device for maxillofacial imaging. , 2007, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[3]  Remo Sala,et al.  A new computer-assisted technique to aid personal identification , 2009, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[4]  Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman,et al.  Measurements on 3D models of human skulls derived from two different cone beam CT scanners , 2011, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[5]  Janalt Damstra,et al.  Evaluation of anthropometric accuracy and reliability using different three-dimensional scanning systems. , 2011, Forensic science international.

[6]  Reinhilde Jacobs,et al.  A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT) Part I. On subjective image quality. , 2010, European journal of radiology.

[7]  Janalt Damstra,et al.  Accuracy and reliability of facial soft tissue depth measurements using cone beam computer tomography. , 2010, Forensic science international.

[8]  Yijin Ren,et al.  Editor's Summary and Q&A: Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomography-derived surface models of different voxel sizes , 2010 .

[9]  R Jacobs,et al.  Image quality vs radiation dose of four cone beam computed tomography scanners. , 2008, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[10]  Manuel O Lagravère,et al.  Three-dimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images. , 2008, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[11]  Janalt Damstra,et al.  Segmentation process significantly influences the accuracy of 3D surface models derived from cone beam computed tomography. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[12]  Theodore Eliades,et al.  Appropriateness of reporting statistical results in orthodontics: the dominance of P values over confidence intervals. , 2011, European journal of orthodontics.

[13]  R. Jacobs,et al.  A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT). Part II: On 3D model accuracy. , 2010, European journal of radiology.

[14]  Danielle R. Periago,et al.  Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. , 2008, The Angle orthodontist.

[15]  S. Richmond,et al.  Three‐dimensional surface acquisition systems for the study of facial morphology and their application to maxillofacial surgery , 2007, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[16]  Guy Marchal,et al.  Assessment of bone segmentation quality of cone-beam CT versus multislice spiral CT: a pilot study. , 2006, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[17]  John W Ballrick,et al.  Image distortion and spatial resolution of a commercially available cone-beam computed tomography machine. , 2008, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[18]  Manuel O Lagravère,et al.  Plane orientation for standardization in 3-dimensional cephalometric analysis with computerized tomography imaging. , 2006, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[19]  A. Farman,et al.  Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. , 2006, Journal.

[20]  Janalt Damstra,et al.  Reliability and the smallest detectable difference of measurements on 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images. , 2011, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[21]  Allan G Farman,et al.  Development of imaging selection criteria and procedures should precede cephalometric assessment with cone-beam computed tomography. , 2006, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[22]  P. Wesselink,et al.  Comparison of five cone beam computed tomography systems for the detection of vertical root fractures. , 2010, Journal of endodontics.

[23]  Reinhilde Jacobs,et al.  Influence of scanning and reconstruction parameters on quality of three-dimensional surface models of the dental arches from cone beam computed tomography , 2009, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[24]  Demetrios J Halazonetis,et al.  From 2-dimensional cephalograms to 3-dimensional computed tomography scans. , 2005, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[25]  Bassam Hassan,et al.  Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. , 2009, European journal of orthodontics.

[26]  HyeRan Choo,et al.  Practical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. , 2010, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[27]  Johan Van Cleynenbreugel,et al.  High precision planning for oral implants based on 3-D CT scanning. A new surgical technique for immediate and delayed loading , 2004 .

[28]  Allan G Farman,et al.  Linear accuracy of cone beam CT derived 3D images. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[29]  William R Proffit,et al.  Image analysis and superimposition of 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography models. , 2006, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.