Skip to main content
Log in

The influence of the segmentation process on 3D measurements from cone beam computed tomography-derived surface models

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To compare the accuracy of linear and angular measurements between cephalometric and anatomic landmarks on surface models derived from 3D cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with two different segmentation protocols was the aim of this study. CBCT scans were made of cadaver heads and 3D surface models were created of the mandible using two different segmentation protocols. A high-resolution laser surface scanner was used to make a 3D model of the macerated mandibles. Twenty linear measurements at 15 anatomic and cephalometric landmarks between the laser surface scan and the 3D models generated from the two segmentation protocols (commercial segmentation (CS) and doctor’s segmentation (DS) groups) were measured. The interobserver agreement for all the measurements of the all three techniques was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.97–1.00). The results are for both groups very accurate, but only for the measurements on the condyle and lingual part of the mandible, the measurements in the CS group is slightly more accurate than the DS group. 3D surface models produced by CBCT are very accurate but slightly inferior to reality when threshold-based methods are used. Differences in the segmentation process resulted in significant clinical differences between the measurements. Care has to be taken when drawing conclusions from measurements and comparisons made from different segmentations, especially at the condylar region and the lingual side of the mandible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  1. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P (2006) Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practise. J Can Dent Assoc 72:75–80

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Loubele M, Schutyser F, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D (2006) State-of-the-art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Invest 10:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cevidanes LH, Styner MA, Proffit WR (2006) Image analysis and superimposition of 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 129:611–618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Farman AG, Scarfe WC (2006) Development of imaging selection criteria and procedures should precede cephalometric assessment with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130:257–265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lagravere MO, Hansen L, Harzer W, Major PW (2006) Plane orientation for standardization in 3-dimensional cephalometric analysis with computerized tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 129:601–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Halazonetis DJ (2005) From 2-dimensional cephalograms to 3-dimensional computed tomography scans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 127:627–637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mah JK, Huang JC, Choo H (2010) Practical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. JADA 141:7S–13S

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. van Steenberghe D, Ericsson I, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Schutyser F, Brajnovic I, Andersson M (2004) High precision planning for oral implants based on 3-D CT scanning. A new surgical technique for immediate and delayed loading. Appl Osseoint Res 4:27–31

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hassan B, Couto Souza PC, Jacobs R, de Azambuja BS, van der Stelt P (2010) Influence of scanning and reconstruction parameters on quality of three-dimensional surface models of the dental arches from cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Inverstig 3:303–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Loubele M, Jacobs R, Maes F, Denis K, White S, Coudyser W et al (2008) Image quality vs radiation dose of four cone-beam computerized scanners. Dentomaxillofac Rad 37:309–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ballrick JW, Palomo JM, Ruch E, Amberman BD, Hans MG (2008) Image distortion and spatial resolution of a commercially available cone-beam computed tomography machine. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134:573–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Brown AA, Scarfe WC, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG (2009) Linear accuracy of cone beam CT 3D images. Angle Orthod 79:150–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Periago DR, Scarfe WC, Moshiri M, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG (2008) Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. Angle Orthod 78:387–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mischkowski RA, Pulsfort R, Ritter L, Neugebauer J, Brochhagen HG, Keeve E et al (2008) Geometric accuracy of a newly developed cone-beam device for maxillofacial imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104:551–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lagravere MO, Carey J, Toogood RW, Major PW (2008) Three-dimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134:112–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Sanderink G (2009) Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. Eur J Orthod 31:129–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y, Denis K, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Jacobs R (2010) Part II: On 3D model accuracy. In: A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT), Eur J Radiol., pp 270–274

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fourie Z, Damstra J, Gerrits PO, Ren Y (2011) Evaluation of anthropometric accuracy and reliability using different three-dimensional scanning systems. Forensic Sci Int 207:127–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fourie Z, Damstra J, Gerrits PO, Ren Y (2010) Accuracy and reliability of facial soft tissue depth measurement using cone beam computed tomography. Forensic Sci Int 199:9–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fourie Z, Damstra J, Schepers RH, Gerrits PO, Ren Y (2012) Segmentation process significantly influences the accuracy of 3D surface models derived from cone beam computed tomography. Euro J Radiol 81:524–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJR, Ren Y (2010) Accuracy of linear measurements form cone-beam computed tomography-derived surface models of different voxel sizes. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 137:16.e1–16.e6

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hassan B, Metska ME, Ozok AR, van der Stelt P, Wesselink PR (2010) Comparison of five cone beam computed tomography systems for the detection of vertical root fractures. JOE 36:126–129

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Loubele M, Maes F, Schutyser F, Marchal G, Jacobs R, Suetens P (2006) Assessment of bone segmentation quality of cone-beam CT versus multislice spiral CT: a pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 102:225–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Van Vlijmen OJ, Rangel FA, Berge SJ, Bronkhorst EM, Becking AC, Kuiper-Jagtman AM (2011) Measurements on 3D models of human skulls derived from different cone beam scanners. Clin Oral Investig 15:721–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kau CH, Richmond S, Incrapera A, English J, Xia JJ (2007) Three-dimensional surface acquisition systems for the study of facial morphology and their application to maxillofacial surgery. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 3:97–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Polychronopoulou A, Pandis N, Eliades T (2011) Appropriateness of reporting statistical results in orthodontics: the dominance of P values over confidence intervals. Eur J Orthod 33:22–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. De Angelis D, Sala R, Cantatore A, Grandi M, Cattaneo C (2009) A new computer-assisted technique to aid personal identification. Int J Legal Med 123:351–356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJR, Ren Y (2011) Reliability and the smallest detectable difference of three-dimensional cephalometric measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 140:e107–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zacharias Fourie.

Additional information

Zacharias Fourie and Willem P Engelbrecht shared first authorship.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Engelbrecht, W.P., Fourie, Z., Damstra, J. et al. The influence of the segmentation process on 3D measurements from cone beam computed tomography-derived surface models. Clin Oral Invest 17, 1919–1927 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0881-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0881-3

Keywords

Navigation