International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  14 (2024)
Volume  13 (2023)
Volume  12 (2022)
Volume  11 (2021)
Volume  10 (2020)
Volume  9 (2019)
Volume  8 (2018)
Volume  7 (2017)
Volume  6 (2016)
Volume  5 (2015)
Volume  4 (2014)
Volume  3 (2013)
Volume  2 (2012)
Volume  1 (2011)
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Accuracy of Automatic vs Point-based Semiautomatic Registration for Superimposition of Digital Dental Cast to Cone Beam Computed Tomography Three-dimensional Image in Computer-guided Prosthodontic Planning: A Cross-sectional Study

Nada S Mostafa, Enas Anter, Ahmed Mohamed Abd Alsamad

Keywords : Cone beam computed tomography, Dental model, Digital, Observational study, Registration

Citation Information : Mostafa NS, Anter E, Alsamad AM. Accuracy of Automatic vs Point-based Semiautomatic Registration for Superimposition of Digital Dental Cast to Cone Beam Computed Tomography Three-dimensional Image in Computer-guided Prosthodontic Planning: A Cross-sectional Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2024; 14 (4):225-233.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1476

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-12-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of the automatic registration of digital dental casts to cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images vs the point-based semiautomatic registration. Materials and methods: Twenty single jaws of partially edentulous patients were included. For each patient, a CBCT scan was performed, and a dental stone cast was scanned using a desktop scanner. The acquired digital data were imported into Blue-Sky-Plan software. Image registration was performed twice: the first was the automatic registration, while the second was the point-based semiautomatic registration. For accuracy assessment, three digital surface images were exported from Blue-Sky-Plan software and then imported with the same orientation into Medit Design software. The square root of the mean square of the distance measurements [root mean square (RMS)] was used to measure the deviation between the CBCT surface and the registered cast by each technique, and also between the cast alignments in the two registration techniques. A color map was used to visually assess the error distribution. Comparison between the deviation errors in both registration techniques was analyzed using the paired t-test, while inter- and intraobserver reliability were analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: The RMS error was 0.33 mm for automatic registration and 0.32 mm for point-based registration, with no statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the two methods. For the deviation between the cast alignment of the two different registration techniques, the RMS error was 0.11 mm. Both registration techniques showed strong inter- and intraobserver agreement (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The automatic registration of the digital cast image to the CBCT scan using Blue-Sky-Plan software is as accurate and reliable as the point-based semiautomatic registration technique. The automatic registration technique can be used to decrease planning steps, save planning time, and eliminate operator-related discrepancies. Clinical trial registration number: ORAD 6-3-1 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

PDF Share
  1. Hou X, Xu X, Zhao M, et al. An overview of three-dimensional imaging devices in dentistry. J Esthet Restor Dent 2022;34(8):1179–1196. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12955
  2. Shujaat S, Bornstein MM, Price JB, et al. Integration of imaging modalities in digital dental workflows - possibilities, limitations, and potential future developments. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2021;50(7):20210268. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20210268
  3. Nikoyan L, Patel R. Intraoral scanner, three-dimensional imaging, and three-dimensional printing in the dental office. Dent Clin North Am 2020;64(2):365–378. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2019.12.004
  4. Jamjoom FZ, Kim DG, McGlumphy EA, et al. Positional accuracy of a prosthetic treatment plan incorporated into a cone beam computed tomography scan using surface scan registration. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120(3):367–374. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.11.019
  5. Lim SW, Hwang HS, Cho IS, et al. Registration accuracy between intraoral-scanned and cone-beam computed tomography-scanned crowns in various registration methods. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;157(3):348–356. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.04.031
  6. Jain S, Choudhary K, Nagi R, et al. New evolution of cone-beam computed tomography in dentistry: combining digital technologies. Imaging Sci Dent 2019;49(3):179–190. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2019.49.3.179
  7. Park JH, Hwang CJ, Choi YJ, et al. Registration of digital dental models and cone-beam computed tomography images using 3-dimensional planning software: Comparison of the accuracy according to scanning methods and software. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;157(6):843–851. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.12.013
  8. Mahmood RS, Hamandi SJA, Al-Mahdi AH. Create virtual dentoskeletal model by superimposing digital dental cast into cone-beam computed tomography scan. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2024. DOI: 10.1007/s11548-024-03111-4
  9. Schubert O, Schweiger J, Stimmelmayr M, et al. Digital implant planning and guided implant surgery - workflow and reliability. Br Dent J 2019;226(2):101–108. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2019.44
  10. Reddy N, Vempalli S, Prakash J, et al. Evaluation of the effect of digital dentistry on the accuracy of implant placement and prosthesis fabrication-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prosthesis 2023;5. DOI: 10.3390/prosthesis5030047
  11. Flügge T, Kramer J, Nelson K, et al. Digital implantology—a review of virtual planning software for guided implant surgery. Part II: Prosthetic set-up and virtual implant planning. BMC Oral Health 2022;22(1):23. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02057-w
  12. Lin CC, Wu CZ, Huang MS, et al. Fully digital workflow for planning static guided implant surgery: a prospective accuracy study. J Clin Med 2020;9(4). DOI: 10.3390/jcm9040980
  13. Yang S, Dong B, Zhang Q, et al. An indirect digital technique to transfer 3D printed casts to a mechanical articulator with individual sagittal condylar inclination settings using CBCT and intraoral scans. J Prosthodont 2022;31(9):822–827. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13570
  14. Kois JC, Kois DE, Zeitler JM, et al. Digital to analog facially generated interchangeable facebow transfer: capturing a standardized reference position. J Prosthodont 2022;31(S1):13–22. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13437
  15. Özdemir G, Albayrak B, Yuzbasioglu E, et al. Virtual articulators, virtual occlusal records and virtual patients in dentistry. J Exp Clin Med 2021;38:129–135. DOI: 10.52142/omujecm.38.si.dent.9
  16. Li J, Att W, Chen Z, et al. Prosthetic articulator-based implant rehabilitation virtual patient: a technique bridging implant surgery and reconstructive dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 2023;130(1):8–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.013
  17. Yuan Y, Liu Q, Yang S, et al. Four-dimensional superimposition techniques to compose dental dynamic virtual patients: a systematic review. J Funct Biomater 2023;14(1). DOI: 10.3390/jfb14010033
  18. Lee KC, Park JH, Kim JC, et al. Digital application of three-dimensional diagnosis and treatment with a virtual articulator. J Esthet Restor Dent 2024;36(5):710–722. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.13185
  19. Lin X, Chen T, Liu J, et al. Point-based superimposition of a digital dental model on to a three-dimensional computed tomographic skull: an accuracy study in vitro. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;53(1):28–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.09.007
  20. Flügge T, Derksen W, Te Poel J, et al. Registration of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral surface scans - a prerequisite for guided implant surgery with CAD/CAM drilling guides. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28(9):1113–1118. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12925
  21. Kim BC, Lee CE, Park W, et al. Integration accuracy of digital dental models and 3-dimensional computerized tomography images by sequential point- and surface-based markerless registration. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;110(3):370–378. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.03.036
  22. Almutairi T, Naudi K, Nairn N, et al. Replacement of the distorted dentition of the cone-beam computed tomography scans for orthognathic surgery planning. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018;76(7):1561.e1–1561.e8. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.02.018
  23. Noh H, Nabha W, Cho JH, et al. Registration accuracy in the integration of laser-scanned dental images into maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140(4):585–591. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.04.018
  24. Rangel FA, Maal TJJ, de Koning MJJ, et al. Integration of digital dental casts in cone beam computed tomography scans—a clinical validation study. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22(3):1215–1222. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2203-2
  25. Choi YS, Kim MK, Lee JW, et al. Impact of the number of registration points for replacement of three-dimensional computed tomography images in dental areas using three-dimensional light-scanned images of dental models. Oral Radiology 2014;30(1):32–37. DOI: 10.1007/s11282-013-0136-2
  26. Chung M, Lee J, Song W, et al. Automatic registration between dental cone-beam CT and scanned surface via deep pose regression neural networks and clustered similarities. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2020;39(12):3900–3909. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2020.3007520
  27. Kim YJ, Ahn JH, Lim HK, et al. Novel procedure for automatic registration between cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral scan data supported with 3D segmentation. Bioengineering (Basel) 2023;10(11). DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering10111326
  28. Kim M, Chung M, Shin YG, et al. Automatic registration of dental CT and 3D scanned model using deep split jaw and surface curvature. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2023;233:107467. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107467
  29. Alhossaini SJ, Neena AF, Issa NO, et al. Accuracy of markerless registration methods of DICOM and STL files used for computerized surgical guides in mandibles with metal restorations: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2024;132(5):986–993. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.09.017
  30. Sun L, Hwang HS, Lee KM. Registration area and accuracy when integrating laser-scanned and maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;153(3):355–361. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.027
  31. Andruch K, Malecki M. Surface registration accuracy of clinically obtained intraoral optical scans with manually threshold segmented CBCT data. Int J Dent Sci Res 2020;8(1):7–16.
  32. Ye N, Long H, Xue J, et al. Integration accuracy of laser-scanned dental models into maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography images of different voxel sizes with different segmentation threshold settings. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2014;117(6):780–786. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2014.02.022
  33. Jamjoom FZ, Yilmaz B, Johnston WM. Impact of number of registration points on the positional accuracy of a prosthetic treatment plan incorporated into a cone beam computed tomography scan by surface scan registration: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30(8):826–832. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13490
  34. Mai HY, Lee DH. Impact of matching point selections on image registration accuracy between optical scan and computed tomography. Biomed Res Int 2020;2020:3285431. DOI: 10.1155/2020/3285431
  35. Hassan B, Souza P, Jacobs R, et al. Influence of scanning and reconstruction parameters on quality of three-dimensional surface models of the dental arches from cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig 2009;14:303–310. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-009-0291-3
  36. Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Impact of voxel size variation on CBCT-based diagnostic outcome in dentistry: a systematic review. J Digit Imaging 2013;26(4):813–820. DOI: 10.1007/s10278-012-9562-7
  37. Widmann G, Bale RJ. Accuracy in computer-aided implant surgery–a review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21(2):305–313.
  38. Pettersson A, Komiyama A, Hultin M, et al. Accuracy of virtually planned and template guided implant surgery on edentate patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14(4):527–537. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00285.x
  39. Dreiseidler T, Tandon D, Kreppel M, et al. CBCT device dependency on the transfer accuracy from computer-aided implantology procedures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23(9):1089–1097. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02272.x
  40. Vandenberghe B. The digital patient - imaging science in dentistry. J Dent 2018;74(Suppl 1):S21–S26. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.04.019
  41. Lin HH, Chiang WC, Lo LJ, et al. A new method for the integration of digital dental models and cone-beam computed tomography images. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2013;2013:2328–2331. DOI: 10.1109/EMBC.2013.6610004
  42. Lin HH, Chiang WC, Lo LJ, et al. Artifact-resistant superimposition of digital dental models and cone-beam computed tomography images. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;71(11):1933–1947. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2013.06.199
  43. Yang WM, Ho CT, Lo LJ. Automatic superimposition of palatal fiducial markers for accurate integration of digital dental model and cone beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;73(8):1616.e1–1616.e10. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.04.004
  44. Piao XY, Park JM, Kim H, et al. Evaluation of different registration methods and dental restorations on the registration duration and accuracy of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral scans: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Oral Investig 2022;26(9):5763–5771. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04533-7
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.