Registration of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral surface scans – A prerequisite for guided implant surgery with CAD/CAM drilling guides

Abstract Objectives Guided implant surgery (GIS) is performed with drilling guides that are produced on the virtual tooth model using CAD/CAM technology. The prerequisite for this workflow is the alignment of patients cone beam computed tomography CBCT and surface scan (registration). Dental restorations may cause deteriorating imaging artifacts in CBCT data, which in turn can have an impact on the registration process. The influence of the user and the preprocessing of data and of image artifacts on the registration accuracy were examined. Material and Methods CBCT data and intraoral surface scans of 36 patients were used for virtual implant planning in coDiagnostiX (Dentalwings, Montreal, Canada). CBCT data were reconstructed to a three‐dimensional anatomical model with the default settings provided by the software and also manually by four different examiners. Subsequently, the CBCT and intraoral surface models were registered by each examiner with the help of anatomical landmarks. Patients' data were subdivided into four groups (A–D) according to the number of metallic restorations: A = 0–2 restorations, B = 3–5 restorations, C = 6–8 restorations and D > 8 restorations. After registration, the distances between CBCT and dental surface models were measured. Linear regression models were used to assess the influence of the segmentation, the examiner and to the number of restorations (P < 0.05). Results The deviations between surface scan and CBCT models accounted to 0.54 mm (mean). The mean deviations were 0.69 mm (max. 24.8 mm) and 0.4 mm (max. 9.1 mm) for default and manual segmentation, respectively. Mean deviations of 0.36 mm (Group A), 0.43 mm (Group B), 0.67 mm (Group C) and 1.01 mm (Group D) were recorded. The segmentation (P = 0.000), the user (P = 0.0052) and the number of restorations (P = 0.0337) had a significant influence on the registration accuracy. Conclusions The deviation between CBCT and surface scan model resulting from inaccurate registration is transferred to the surgical field and results in a deviation between the planned and actual implant position. The registration accuracy in commercial virtual implant planning software is significantly influenced by the preprocessing of imported data, by the user and by the number of restorations resulting in clinically non‐acceptable deviations encoded in drilling guides.

[1]  G. Swennen,et al.  The use of a new 3D splint and double CT scan procedure to obtain an accurate anatomic virtual augmented model of the skull. , 2007, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[2]  Jaime Gateno,et al.  A new technique for the creation of a computerized composite skull model. , 2003, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[3]  H Bergmann,et al.  In-vitro assessment of a registration protocol for image guided implant dentistry. , 2001, Clinical oral implants research.

[4]  A. Kuijpers-Jagtman,et al.  Integration of Digital Dental Casts in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scans , 2012, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[5]  Filip Schutyser,et al.  The Use of a Wax Bite Wafer and a Double Computed Tomography Scan Procedure to Obtain a Three-Dimensional Augmented Virtual Skull Model , 2007, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[6]  Patricia R Cury,et al.  Clinical application of stereolithographic surgical guides for implant placement: preliminary results. , 2005, Journal of periodontology.

[7]  Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman,et al.  Digital three-dimensional image fusion processes for planning and evaluating orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. A systematic review. , 2011, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[8]  Gerlig Widmann,et al.  Accuracy in computer-aided implant surgery--a review. , 2006, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[9]  Daniel Wismeijer,et al.  Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. , 2014, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[10]  Rainer Schmelzeisen,et al.  Three-dimensional plotting and printing of an implant drilling guide: simplifying guided implant surgery. , 2013, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[11]  Clark Stanford,et al.  Thematic abstract review: ORONet and an approach to understanding patient-oriented outcomes relative to oral implant therapy. , 2014, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[12]  Joan Serra,et al.  Image segmentation , 2003, Proceedings 2003 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat. No.03CH37429).

[13]  Erik Gotfredsen,et al.  Impact of Voxel Size Variation on CBCT-Based Diagnostic Outcome in Dentistry: a Systematic Review , 2013, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[14]  Regina Mericske-Stern,et al.  Prosthetically driven, computer-guided implant planning for the edentulous maxilla: a model study. , 2009, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[15]  Reinhilde Jacobs,et al.  A randomized clinical trial comparing guided implant surgery (bone- or mucosa-supported) with mental navigation or the use of a pilot-drill template. , 2014, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[16]  Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman,et al.  Accuracy and Reliability of a Novel Method for Fusion of Digital Dental Casts and Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans , 2013, PloS one.

[17]  Reinhilde Jacobs,et al.  Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. , 2014, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[18]  Nikolaus Behneke,et al.  Factors influencing transfer accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant placement. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[19]  Reinhilde Jacobs,et al.  Different techniques of static/dynamic guided implant surgery: modalities and indications. , 2014, Periodontology 2000.

[20]  R Jacobs,et al.  Accuracy assessment of three-dimensional surface reconstructions of teeth from cone beam computed tomography scans. , 2010, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[21]  Paul Suetens,et al.  A custom template and definitive prosthesis allowing immediate implant loading in the maxilla: a clinical report. , 2002, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[22]  Filip Schutyser,et al.  Three-dimensional treatment planning of orthognathic surgery in the era of virtual imaging. , 2009, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[23]  Tabea V Flügge,et al.  Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. , 2013, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[24]  Jean Loup Coudert,et al.  Reliability of preoperative planning of an image-guided system for oral implant placement based on 3-dimensional images: an in vivo study. , 2003, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[25]  Frank Y. Shih,et al.  Image Segmentation , 2007, Encyclopedia of Biometrics.

[26]  Jacob Rosen,et al.  Accuracy of implant placement using precision surgical guides with varying occlusogingival heights: an in vitro study. , 2009, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[27]  E Nkenke,et al.  Fusion of computed tomography data and optical 3D images of the dentition for streak artefact correction in the simulation of orthognathic surgery. , 2004, Dento maxillo facial radiology.