Accuracy and reliability of landmark‐based, surface‐based and voxel‐based 3D cone‐beam computed tomography superimposition methods

Ghoneima, Ahmed; Cho, H; Farouk, Khaled; Kula, Katherine

doi:10.1111/ocr.12205

Cited by 63 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(90 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Figure ). Using this technique, Dolphin 3D software combines the voxels in the defined area and automatically superimposed both images . The teeth in the postoperative CBCT were replaced by digital dental models obtained before surgery.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of 3D virtual surgical planning for maxillary positioning and orientation in orthognathic surgery

Tonin

Filho

Yamashita

et al. 2020

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This retrospective and observational study evaluated the accuracy of a 3D virtual surgical planning (VSP) for the maxillary positioning and orientation in patients undergoing bimaxillary orthognathic surgery, comparing the planned and postoperative outcomes. Setting and Sample Population Seventy consecutive patients of both sexes, who were submitted to bimaxillary orthognathic surgery between 2015 and 2019 were included in our study. Material and Methods The patients were evaluated by fusing preoperative planning and postoperative outcome using cone‐beam computed tomography scan evaluation. Three‐dimensional VSP and postoperative outcomes were compared by using three linear and three angular measurements. The main outcome interest was the difference between the VSP movement, and the surgical movement obtained. The success criterion adopted was a mean linear difference of <2 mm and a mean angular difference of <4°. Results Results were analysed using a linear mixed model with fixed and random effects, at α = .05. No significant statistical differences were found for linear and angular measurements between the planned and postsurgical outcomes (P > .05). All overlapping points presented values within the range considered clinically irrelevant (<2 mm; <1°). Conclusions Three‐dimensional VSP was executed with a high degree of accuracy. When comparing the planned and postsurgical outcomes, all overlapping points presented values within the range considered clinically irrelevant.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of 3D virtual surgical planning for maxillary positioning and orientation in orthognathic surgery

Tonin

Filho

Yamashita

et al. 2020

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Selecting the particular landmarks to use is one of the most important tasks in the design of morphometric research projects and case studies. Even though landmark‐free approaches to shape analysis are gaining ground (Koehl and Hass, ; Bulut et al, ; Ghoneima et al, ), and even though non‐shape features such as volume and surface area remain relevant (Sholts et al, ; Shearer et al, ; Petaros et al, ), we believe that landmark‐based shape analysis will continue to be a very important research method. One clear advantage of landmarks, compared to landmark‐free approaches, is that it is relatively easy to establish anatomical equivalence or correspondence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landmark Typology in Applied Morphometrics Studies: What's the Point?

Wärmländer

Garvin

Guyomarc’h

et al. 2018

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landmarks are the hallmark of biological shape analysis as discrete anatomical points of correspondence. Various systems have been developed for their classification. In the most widely used system, developed by Bookstein in the 1990s, landmarks are divided into three distinct types based on their anatomical locations and biological significance. As Bookstein and others have argued that different landmark types possess different qualities, e.g., that Type 3 landmarks contain deficient information about shape variation and are less reliably measured, researchers began using landmark types as justification for selecting or avoiding particular landmarks for measurement or analysis. Here, we demonstrate considerable variation in landmark classifications among 17 studies using geometric morphometrics (GM), due to disagreement in the application of both Bookstein's landmark typology and individual landmark definitions. A review of the literature furthermore shows little correlation between landmark type and measurement reproducibility, especially when factors such as differences in measurement tools (calipers, digitizer, or computer software) and data sources (dry crania, 3D models, or 2D images) are considered. Although landmark typology is valuable when teaching biological shape analysis, we find that employing it in research design introduces confusion without providing useful information. Instead, researchers should choose landmark configurations based on their ability to test specific research hypotheses, and research papers should include justifications of landmark choices along with landmark definitions, details on landmark collection methods, and appropriate interobserver and intraobserver analyses. Hence, while the landmarks themselves are crucial for GM, we argue that their typology is of little use in applied studies. Anat Rec, 302:1144–1153, 2019. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

“…A good superimposition method should be able to register precisely and aid understanding of the changes as a result of growth and/or treatment relative to the structure of reference. According to previous studies, landmark superimposition (Figure ) is similar to 2D cephalometric but more complex, since identifying the landmarks in 3D images can be challenging . Surface ‐based superimposition (Figure ) uses only the “surface” of the 3D structure and requires high‐quality surface for an accurate superimposition .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies comparing the three methods suggested that landmark superimposition is the least reliable. Surface registration and voxel‐based registration were validated, being the voxel‐based registration associated with less variability . It was also suggested that initial approximation of the images is an important step to reduce registration time of the programme and improve the precision of the superimposition …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For 2D superimposition, the American Board of Orthodontics suggests using the anterior cranial base to assess the total superimposition; the anterior surface of zygomatic proves for maxillary superimposition; and the inner contour of the chin and the alveolar canal for mandibular superimposition . The translation from 2D to 3D superimposition can be challenging.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

3D superimposition of craniofacial imaging—The utility of multicentre collaborations

Yatabe

Prieto

Styner

et al. 2019

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structured Abstract Clinical applications of 3D image registration and superimposition have contributed to better understanding growth changes and clinical outcomes. The use of 3D dental and craniofacial imaging in dentistry requires validate image analysis methods for improved diagnosis, treatment planning, navigation and assessment of treatment response. Volumetric 3D images, such as cone-beam computed tomography, can now be superimposed by voxels, surfaces or landmarks. Regardless of the image modality or the software tools, the concepts of regions or points of reference affect all quantitative of qualitative assessments. This study reviews current state of the art in 3D image analysis including 3D superimpositions relative to the cranial base and different regional superimpositions, the development of open source and commercial tools for 3D analysis, how this technology has increased clinical research collaborations from centres all around the globe, some insight on how to incorporate artificial intelligence for big data analysis and progress towards personalized orthodontics.

show abstract

Accuracy and reliability of landmark‐based, surface‐based and voxel‐based 3D cone‐beam computed tomography superimposition methods

Cited by 63 publications

References 23 publications

Accuracy of 3D virtual surgical planning for maxillary positioning and orientation in orthognathic surgery

Accuracy of 3D virtual surgical planning for maxillary positioning and orientation in orthognathic surgery

Landmark Typology in Applied Morphometrics Studies: What's the Point?

3D superimposition of craniofacial imaging—The utility of multicentre collaborations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About