Limits...
Accuracy of virtual models in the assessment of maxillary defects.

Kamburoğlu K, Kurşun Ş, Kılıç C, Özen T - Imaging Sci Dent (2015)

Bottom Line: Virtual models obtained using VRMesh Design were compared with impressions obtained by scanning silicon models.Gold standard volumes of the impression models were then compared with CBCT and 3D scanner measurements.Further, the 3D scanner measurements were closer to the gold standard measurements when compared to the CBCT measurements.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the reliability of measurements performed on three-dimensional (3D) virtual models of maxillary defects obtained using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D optical scanning.

Materials and methods: Mechanical cavities simulating maxillary defects were prepared on the hard palate of nine cadavers. Images were obtained using a CBCT unit at three different fields-of-views (FOVs) and voxel sizes: 1) 60×60 mm FOV, 0.125 mm(3) (FOV60); 2) 80×80 mm FOV, 0.160 mm(3) (FOV80); and 3) 100×100 mm FOV, 0.250 mm(3) (FOV100). Superimposition of the images was performed using software called VRMesh Design. Automated volume measurements were conducted, and differences between surfaces were demonstrated. Silicon impressions obtained from the defects were also scanned with a 3D optical scanner. Virtual models obtained using VRMesh Design were compared with impressions obtained by scanning silicon models. Gold standard volumes of the impression models were then compared with CBCT and 3D scanner measurements. Further, the general linear model was used, and the significance was set to p=0.05.

Results: A comparison of the results obtained by the observers and methods revealed the p values to be smaller than 0.05, suggesting that the measurement variations were caused by both methods and observers along with the different cadaver specimens used. Further, the 3D scanner measurements were closer to the gold standard measurements when compared to the CBCT measurements.

Conclusion: In the assessment of artificially created maxillary defects, the 3D scanner measurements were more accurate than the CBCT measurements.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Comparisons of different FOVs on the basis of observers
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4362988&req=5

Figure 5: Comparisons of different FOVs on the basis of observers

Mentions: A comparison of FOVs according to observers revealed that the p values were smaller than 0.05 (p=0.009) for different FOVs and observers. However, this variation in the measurements was mainly attributed to the different cadaver specimens used. Comparisons of different FOVs on the basis of observers are presented in Table 1 and Figure 5. There was a significant difference between both observers, but among the total variation of FOV values, this difference contributed to a clinically small percentage. The variation among observers for different FOVs ranged between 0 and 10000mm3 with an average of 994 mm3, which could be considered clinically insignificant.


Accuracy of virtual models in the assessment of maxillary defects.

Kamburoğlu K, Kurşun Ş, Kılıç C, Özen T - Imaging Sci Dent (2015)

Comparisons of different FOVs on the basis of observers
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4362988&req=5

Figure 5: Comparisons of different FOVs on the basis of observers
Mentions: A comparison of FOVs according to observers revealed that the p values were smaller than 0.05 (p=0.009) for different FOVs and observers. However, this variation in the measurements was mainly attributed to the different cadaver specimens used. Comparisons of different FOVs on the basis of observers are presented in Table 1 and Figure 5. There was a significant difference between both observers, but among the total variation of FOV values, this difference contributed to a clinically small percentage. The variation among observers for different FOVs ranged between 0 and 10000mm3 with an average of 994 mm3, which could be considered clinically insignificant.

Bottom Line: Virtual models obtained using VRMesh Design were compared with impressions obtained by scanning silicon models.Gold standard volumes of the impression models were then compared with CBCT and 3D scanner measurements.Further, the 3D scanner measurements were closer to the gold standard measurements when compared to the CBCT measurements.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the reliability of measurements performed on three-dimensional (3D) virtual models of maxillary defects obtained using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D optical scanning.

Materials and methods: Mechanical cavities simulating maxillary defects were prepared on the hard palate of nine cadavers. Images were obtained using a CBCT unit at three different fields-of-views (FOVs) and voxel sizes: 1) 60×60 mm FOV, 0.125 mm(3) (FOV60); 2) 80×80 mm FOV, 0.160 mm(3) (FOV80); and 3) 100×100 mm FOV, 0.250 mm(3) (FOV100). Superimposition of the images was performed using software called VRMesh Design. Automated volume measurements were conducted, and differences between surfaces were demonstrated. Silicon impressions obtained from the defects were also scanned with a 3D optical scanner. Virtual models obtained using VRMesh Design were compared with impressions obtained by scanning silicon models. Gold standard volumes of the impression models were then compared with CBCT and 3D scanner measurements. Further, the general linear model was used, and the significance was set to p=0.05.

Results: A comparison of the results obtained by the observers and methods revealed the p values to be smaller than 0.05, suggesting that the measurement variations were caused by both methods and observers along with the different cadaver specimens used. Further, the 3D scanner measurements were closer to the gold standard measurements when compared to the CBCT measurements.

Conclusion: In the assessment of artificially created maxillary defects, the 3D scanner measurements were more accurate than the CBCT measurements.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus