Novel Anterior Cranial Base Area for Voxel-Based Superimposition of Craniofacial CBCTs

Kanavakis, Georgios; Ghamri, Mohammed; Gkantidis, Nikolaos

doi:10.3390/jcm11123536

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the absence of any existing data for the buccal and palatal sides of the alveolar processes, an a priori power calculation for the tested outcomes was not possible. Thus, we decided to use all available data, which previously provided satisfactory power for analogous outcomes [ 6 , 11 , 22 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoral Scanners for In Vivo 3D Imaging of the Gingiva and the Alveolar Process

Winkler

Sculean

Gkantidis

2022

JCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to assess the reliability of two intraoral surface scanners for the representation of the alveolar process in vivo. Complete maxillary scans (CS 3600, Carestream and TRIOS 3, 3Shape) were repeatedly obtained from 13 fully dentate individuals. Scanner precision and agreement were tested using 3D surface superimpositions on the following reference areas: the buccal front teeth area, the entire dental arch, the entire alveolar process, or single teeth by applying an iterative closest point algorithm. Following each superimposition, the mean absolute distance (MAD) between predefined 3D model surfaces was calculated. Outcomes were analyzed through non-parametric statistics and the visualization of color-coded distance maps. When superimpositions were performed on the alveolar process, the median scanner precision was below 0.05 mm, with statistically significant but negligible differences between scanners. The agreement between the scanners was approximately 0.06 mm. When single-tooth superimpositions were used to assess the precision of adjacent alveolar soft-tissue surfaces, the median error was 0.028 mm, and there was higher agreement between the scanners. The in vivo reliability of the intraoral scanners in the alveolar surface area was high overall. Single-tooth superimpositions should be preferred for the optimal assessment of neighboring alveolar surface areas relative to the dentition.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoral Scanners for In Vivo 3D Imaging of the Gingiva and the Alveolar Process

Winkler

Sculean

Gkantidis

2022

JCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is an expected finding considering that the corresponding models were best-fit approximated at a predefined superimposition reference area, and thus any small rotations of the models on this area results in larger rotations, and thus higher distances, on distant areas, with the center of rotation located somewhere at the center of the selected reference area. This argument is also supported by the outcomes of previous craniofacial superimposition studies testing different hypotheses [ 11 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Precision of a Hand-Held 3D Surface Scanner in Dry and Wet Skeletal Surfaces: An Ex Vivo Study

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three-dimensional surface scans of skeletal structures have various clinical and research applications in medicine, anthropology, and other relevant fields. The aim of this study was to test the precision of a widely used hand-held surface scanner and the associated software’s 3D model generation-error in both dry and wet skeletal surfaces. Ten human dry skulls and ten mandibles (dry and wet conditions) were scanned twice with an industrial scanner (Artec Space Spider) by one operator. Following a best-fit superimposition of corresponding surface model pairs, the mean absolute distance (MAD) between them was calculated on ten anatomical regions on the skulls and six on the mandibles. The software’s 3D model generation process was repeated for the same scan of four dry skulls and four mandibles (wet and dry conditions), and the results were compared in a similar manner. The median scanner precision was 31 μm for the skulls and 25 μm for the mandibles in dry conditions, whereas in wet conditions it was slightly lower at 40 μm for the mandibles. The 3D model generation-error was negligible (range: 5–10 μm). The Artec Space Spider scanner exhibits very high precision in the scanning of dry and wet skeletal surfaces.

show abstract

“…The magnitude of this effect would have been more pronounced in cases of greater tooth displacement or extended treatment periods, particularly in individuals with active growth [ 5 , 11 , 27 ]. The second reason is that when the superimposition reference area is located at a distance from the assessment area, small rotational differences between the superimposed reference areas have an increased impact on the outcomes [ 28 ]. On the contrary, there were no differences between the maxillary and mandibular MADs of the superimposed PDM and FDM dental arches, indicating similar inaccuracies of the DS process in both jaws, compared to the actual treatment result.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital setup accuracy for moderate crowding correction with fixed orthodontic appliances: a prospective study

Kusaibati,

Sultan,

Hajeer

et al. 2024

Prog Orthod.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To evaluate the accuracy of a semi-automatic 3D digital setup process in predicting the orthodontic treatment outcome achieved by labial fixed appliances. Subjects and Methods Twenty-five adult patients (18 to 24 years old) with class I malocclusion and moderate crowding were prospectively enrolled and received treatment on both jaws through the straight-wire technique. Prior to treatment commencement, a semi-automatic digital setup simulating the predicted treatment outcome was performed for each patient through Orthoanalyzer software (3Shape®, Copenhagen, Denmark) to obtain the prediction model. This was compared to the final outcome model through 3D superimposition methods. Metric variables and inspection of color-coded distance maps were used to detect how accurately the digital setup predicts the actual treatment outcome. Results The mean absolute distances (MAD) between the superimposed dental arches of the predicted and the final models were: 0.77 ± 0.13 mm following superimposition on the palate, 0.52 ± 0.06 mm following superimposition on the maxillary dental arch, and 0.55 ± 0.15 mm following superimposition on the mandibular dental arch. The MAD at the palatal reference area was 0.09 ± 0.04 mm. Visualization of color-coded distance maps indicated that the digital setup accurately predicted the final teeth position in a few cases. Almost half of the cases had posteriorly wider upper and lower dental arches and palatally/lingually positioned or inclined anterior teeth, whereas the rest still showed errors within 2–3 mm, distributed over the entire dental arches with no distinct pattern. Conclusions The accuracy of semi-automatic prediction of the labial fixed appliance treatment outcome in Class I cases with moderate crowding is not yet sufficient. While average measures showed deviations less than 1 mm, examination of individual color-coded distance maps revealed significant disparities between the simulated and the actual results.

show abstract

Novel Anterior Cranial Base Area for Voxel-Based Superimposition of Craniofacial CBCTs

Cited by 8 publications

References 30 publications

Intraoral Scanners for In Vivo 3D Imaging of the Gingiva and the Alveolar Process

Intraoral Scanners for In Vivo 3D Imaging of the Gingiva and the Alveolar Process

Precision of a Hand-Held 3D Surface Scanner in Dry and Wet Skeletal Surfaces: An Ex Vivo Study

Digital setup accuracy for moderate crowding correction with fixed orthodontic appliances: a prospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About