The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2022
Accuracy of markerless registration methods of DICOM and STL files used for computerized surgical guides in mandibles with metal restorations: An in vitro study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alhossaini Sara J, Neena Akram F, Issa Noha O, Abouelkheir Hassan M, Gaweesh Yasmine Y
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) files together with surface scans must be accurately registered in virtual implant planning software programs to match real-life dimensions and ensure correct plan transfer through computer-aided manufactured surgical guides.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of 3 different registration methods of DICOM data with and without metal restorations and a metal artifact reduction (MAR) tool for surface scans.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirteen dentate mandibles were assigned to each group of this study (n=39). Baseplate wax was adapted to the bone surfaces of each mandible, and 5 radiopaque markers were attached. A desktop scanner was used to obtain control scans. The groups of metal-free mandibles (MFM) and mandibles with metal restorations (MRM) were scanned to obtain DICOM data without a MAR tool. Additional DICOM data for the MRM were obtained with the MAR tool (MRM-MAR). Point-based registration (PBR), best-fit registration (BFR), and automatic registration (AR) were used to align standard tessellation language (STL) and DICOM data, and 3 data sets were exported. Radiographic markers on each data set were compared with those on the control scan, and positional deviations were calculated and statistically evaluated with 1-way ANOVA followed by multiple pairwise comparisons, independent samples t test, and 2-way ANOVA (α=.05).
RESULTS: Within each group, PBR had the lowest deviation values with statistical significance in the MFM and the MRM-MAR groups (P<.001). AR showed failure in the MRM and the MRM-MAR groups. Statistically significant differences were found on comparing the average deviations among the 3 groups for PBR only (P<.001). No association was found between deviation values and the presence or absence of metal restoration, while a positive association was found with the type of registration method (P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS: PBR had the highest accuracy level compared with AR and BFR methods. An increase in the number of calculations resulted in more deviation values. The MAR tool had a positive effect on PBR in mandibles with metal restorations.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of 3 different registration methods of DICOM data with and without metal restorations and a metal artifact reduction (MAR) tool for surface scans.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirteen dentate mandibles were assigned to each group of this study (n=39). Baseplate wax was adapted to the bone surfaces of each mandible, and 5 radiopaque markers were attached. A desktop scanner was used to obtain control scans. The groups of metal-free mandibles (MFM) and mandibles with metal restorations (MRM) were scanned to obtain DICOM data without a MAR tool. Additional DICOM data for the MRM were obtained with the MAR tool (MRM-MAR). Point-based registration (PBR), best-fit registration (BFR), and automatic registration (AR) were used to align standard tessellation language (STL) and DICOM data, and 3 data sets were exported. Radiographic markers on each data set were compared with those on the control scan, and positional deviations were calculated and statistically evaluated with 1-way ANOVA followed by multiple pairwise comparisons, independent samples t test, and 2-way ANOVA (α=.05).
RESULTS: Within each group, PBR had the lowest deviation values with statistical significance in the MFM and the MRM-MAR groups (P<.001). AR showed failure in the MRM and the MRM-MAR groups. Statistically significant differences were found on comparing the average deviations among the 3 groups for PBR only (P<.001). No association was found between deviation values and the presence or absence of metal restoration, while a positive association was found with the type of registration method (P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS: PBR had the highest accuracy level compared with AR and BFR methods. An increase in the number of calculations resulted in more deviation values. The MAR tool had a positive effect on PBR in mandibles with metal restorations.