Oral Radiology

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 23–31 | Cite as

Comparison of digital dental images yielded by digital dental casts, cone-beam computed tomography, and multislice computed tomography for measurement of dental area

Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Objectives

We investigated and compared the errors generated by multislice computed tomography (MSCT), cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and digital dental casts when used to provide digital data about dental structures.

Methods

Ten A20 skull models were scanned with MSCT and CBCT, and dental plaster cast models were optically scanned in three dimensions. The maxillary dental area was then compared. The distance between the three-dimensional scan data of the skull and each set of digital dental data were measured. Reference data were then overlapped with the experimental digital model using surface-based registration. The distance of errors was measured with the shortest distance measurement function. The distances between each experimental digital model and the reference scan data were measured, and error values were determined for all maxillary teeth and each tooth surface area. Errors were measured for all teeth from the central incisors to the second molar on both the left and right sides. Errors were measured from the mesial, distal, and labial surfaces and the tooth cusp tip area for each tooth.

Results

The digital dental casts had the smallest error (p < 0.001). The error in the digital dental casts (mean ± standard deviation) was 0.10 ± 0.12 mm. The CBCT error was 0.34 ± 0.38 mm, which was significantly greater than the MSCT error (0.19 ± 0.16 mm) (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

We recommend the use of digital dental casts with digital dental imaging for three-dimensional measurement of the dental area because this technique had the smallest errors.

Keywords

Dental model Computed tomography Cone-beam computed tomography Multislice computed tomography 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Sang-Hoon Kang, Yeon-Ho Kim, and Moon-Key Kim declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human rights statement and informed consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions. Informed consent was not needed in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Marchack CB. CAD/CAM-guided implant surgery and fabrication of an immediately loaded prosthesis for a partially edentulous patient. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;97:389–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J. 2009;28(1):44–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nkenke E, Zachow S, Benz M, Maier T, Veit K, Kramer M, et al. Fusion of computed tomography data and optical 3D images of the dentition for streak artefact correction in the simulation of orthognathic surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33(4):226–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kau CH, Bozic M, English J, Lee R, Bussa H, Ellis RK. Cone-beam computed tomography of the maxillofacial region–an update. Int J Med Robot. 2009;5(4):366–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y, Denis K, Hassan B, Li L, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part II: on 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75(2):270–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mischkowski RA, Pulsfort R, Ritter L, Neugebauer J, Brochhagen HG, Keeve E, et al. Geometric accuracy of a newly developed cone-beam device for maxillofacial imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;104(4):551–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jedlinska A. The comparison analysis of the line measurements between plaster and virtual orthodontic 3D models. Ann Acad Med Stetin. 2008;54(2):106–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeLong R, Heinzen M, Hodges JS, Ko CC, Douglas WH. Accuracy of a system for creating 3D computer models of dental arches. J Dent Res. 2003;82(6):438–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dillenseger JP, Matern JF, Gros CI, Bornert F, Goetz C, Le Minor JM, et al. MSCT versus CBCT: evaluation of high-resolution acquisition modes for dento-maxillary and skull-base imaging. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(2):505–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tarazona B, Llamas JM, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes V. A comparison between dental measurements taken from CBCT models and those taken from a digital method. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35(1):1–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(1):16.e1–4 (discussion 16).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patcas R, Muller L, Ullrich O, Peltomaki T. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography at different resolutions assessed on the bony covering of the mandibular anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;141(1):41–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Influence of object location in cone beam computed tomography (NewTom 5G and 3D Accuitomo 170) on gray value measurements at an implant site. Oral Radiol. 2014;30(2):153–9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hernandez Y, Tarazona B, Zamora N, Cibrian R, Gandia J, Paredes V. Comparative study of reproducibility and accuracy in measuring mesiodistal tooth sizes using three different methods: 2D digital, 3D CBCT, and 3D CBCT segmented. Oral Radiol. 2015;31(3):165–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Waard O, Rangel FA, Fudalej PS, Bronkhorst EM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Breuning KH. Reproducibility and accuracy of linear measurements on dental models derived from cone-beam computed tomography compared with digital dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146(3):328–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xu Y, Li J, Zhao S, Shi B, Zheng Q, Wang Y. Accuracy of a plastic facial cast fabricated with a custom tray in comparison with cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2014;117(3):e238–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Widmann G, Stoffner R, Bale R. Errors and error management in image-guided craniomaxillofacial surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107(5):701–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Panmekiate S, Apinhasmit W, Petersson A. Effect of electric potential and current on mandibular linear measurements in cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41(7):578–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loubele M, Van Assche N, Carpentier K, Maes F, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D, et al. Comparative localized linear accuracy of small-field cone-beam CT and multislice CT for alveolar bone measurements. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;105(4):512–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Panzarella FK, Junqueira JL, Oliveira LB, de Araujo NS, Costa C. Accuracy assessment of the axial images obtained from cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(6):369–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pauwels R, Nackaerts O, Bellaiche N, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A, et al. Variability of dental cone beam CT grey values for density estimations. Br J Radiol. 1021;2013(86):20120135.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hofmann E, Schmid M, Sedlmair M, Banckwitz R, Hirschfelder U, Lell M. Comparative study of image quality and radiation dose of cone beam and low-dose multislice computed tomography–an in vitro investigation. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(1):301–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Persson A, Andersson M, Oden A, Sandborgh-Englund G. A three-dimensional evaluation of a laser scanner and a touch-probe scanner. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;95(3):194–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Al-Ekrish AA, Ekram M. A comparative study of the accuracy and reliability of multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in the assessment of dental implant site dimensions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(2):67–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Choi Y-S, Kim M-K, Lee J-W, Kang S-H. 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 Radiol. 2014;30(1):32–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kang SH, Lee JW, Lim SH, Kim YH, Kim MK. Dental image replacement on cone beam computed tomography with three-dimensional optical scanning of a dental cast, occlusal bite, or bite tray impression. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43(10):1293–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kang SH, Kim MK, Kim HJ, Zhengguo P, Lee SH. Accuracy assessment of image-based surface meshing for volumetric computed tomography images in the craniofacial region. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25(6):2051–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Uechi J, Okayama M, Shibata T, Muguruma T, Hayashi K, Endo K, et al. A novel method for the 3-dimensional simulation of orthognathic surgery by using a multimodal image-fusion technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(6):786–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grunheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146(5):673–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryNational Health Insurance Service Ilsan HospitalGoyangRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryCollege of Dentistry, Yonsei UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations