Segmentation process significantly influences the accuracy of 3D surface models derived from cone beam computed tomography.

AIMS To assess the accuracy of surface models derived from 3D cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with two different segmentation protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS Seven fresh-frozen cadaver heads were used. There was no conflict of interests in this study. CBCT scans were made of the heads and 3D surface models were created of the mandible using two different segmentation protocols. The one series of 3D models was segmented by a commercial software company, while the other series was done by an experienced 3D clinician. The heads were then macerated following a standard process. A high resolution laser surface scanner was used to make a 3D model of the macerated mandibles, which acted as the reference 3D model or "gold standard". The 3D models generated from the two rendering protocols were compared with the "gold standard" using a point-based rigid registration algorithm to superimpose the three 3D models. The linear difference at 25 anatomic and cephalometric landmarks between the laser surface scan and the 3D models generate from the two rendering protocols was measured repeatedly in two sessions with one week interval. RESULTS The agreement between the repeated measurement was excellent (ICC=0.923-1.000). The mean deviation from the gold standard by the 3D models generated from the CS group was 0.330mm±0.427, while the mean deviation from the Clinician's rendering was 0.763mm±0.392. The surface models segmented by both CS and DS protocols tend to be larger than those of the reference models. In the DS group, the biggest mean differences with the LSS models were found at the points ConLatR (CI: 0.83-1.23), ConMedR (CI: -3.16 to 2.25), CoLatL (CI: -0.68 to 2.23), Spine (CI: 1.19-2.28), ConAntL (CI: 0.84-1.69), ConSupR (CI: -1.12 to 1.47) and RetMolR (CI: 0.84-1.80). CONCLUSION The Commercially segmented models resembled the reality more closely than the Doctor's segmented models. If 3D models are needed for surgical drilling guides or surgical planning which requires high precision, the additional cost of the commercial segmentation services seem to be justified to produce a more accurate surface models.

[1]  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.

[2]  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.

[3]  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.

[4]  C E Besimo,et al.  Accuracy of implant treatment planning utilizing template-guided reformatted computed tomography. , 2000, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[5]  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.

[6]  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.

[7]  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.

[8]  Janalt Damstra,et al.  Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomography-derived surface models of different voxel sizes. , 2010, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

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

[10]  Yijin Ren,et al.  Reliability and the smallest detectable differences of lateral cephalometric measurements EDITOR'S COMMENT , 2010 .

[11]  Yoshinori Arai,et al.  A comparison of a new limited cone beam computed tomography machine for dental use with a multidetector row helical CT machine. , 2003, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[12]  A. Katsumata,et al.  Image artifact in dental cone-beam CT. , 2006, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[13]  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.

[14]  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.

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

[16]  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 .

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

[18]  Herbert Hofrath,et al.  Die Bedeutung der Röntgenfern- und Abstandsaufnahme für die Diagnostik der Kieferanomalien , 1931, Fortschritte der Orthodontik in Theorie und Praxis.

[19]  P. Pohlenz,et al.  Major mandibular surgical procedures as an indication for intraoperative imaging. , 2008, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[20]  Yijin Ren,et al.  Reliability and the smallest detectable differences of lateral cephalometric measurements. , 2010, 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]  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 .

[22]  S. Dunn,et al.  Feasibility of local CT of dental tissues. , 2003, Dento maxillo facial radiology.