AIM: The study aim was to compare the geometric accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) surface model reconstructions between five Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scanners and one Multi-Slice CT (MSCT) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dry human mandible was scanned with five CBCT systems (NewTom 3G, Accuitomo 3D, i-CAT, Galileos, Scanora 3D) and one MSCT scanner (Somatom Sensation 16). A 3D surface bone model was created from the six systems. The reference (gold standard) 3D model was obtained with a high resolution laser surface scanner. The 3D models from the five systems were compared with the gold standard using a point-based rigid registration algorithm. RESULTS: The mean deviation from the gold standard for MSCT was 0.137 mm and for CBCT were 0.282, 0.225, 0.165, 0.386 and 0.206 mm for the i-CAT, Accuitomo, NewTom, Scanora and Galileos, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results show that the accuracy of CBCT 3D surface model reconstructions is somewhat lower but acceptable comparing to MSCT from the gold standard. Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
AIM: The study aim was to compare the geometric accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) surface model reconstructions between five Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scanners and one Multi-Slice CT (MSCT) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dry human mandible was scanned with five CBCT systems (NewTom 3G, Accuitomo 3D, i-CAT, Galileos, Scanora 3D) and one MSCT scanner (Somatom Sensation 16). A 3D surface bone model was created from the six systems. The reference (gold standard) 3D model was obtained with a high resolution laser surface scanner. The 3D models from the five systems were compared with the gold standard using a point-based rigid registration algorithm. RESULTS: The mean deviation from the gold standard for MSCT was 0.137 mm and for CBCT were 0.282, 0.225, 0.165, 0.386 and 0.206 mm for the i-CAT, Accuitomo, NewTom, Scanora and Galileos, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results show that the accuracy of CBCT 3D surface model reconstructions is somewhat lower but acceptable comparing to MSCT from the gold standard. Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: B A Stuck; C Bachert; P Federspil; W Hosemann; L Klimek; R Mösges; O Pfaar; C Rudack; H Sitter; M Wagenmann; R Weber; K Hörmann Journal: HNO Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 1.284
Authors: Paul W Poeschl; Nina Schmidt; Godoberto Guevara-Rojas; Rudolf Seemann; Rolf Ewers; Harald T Zipko; Kurt Schicho Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: R Patcas; G Markic; L Müller; O Ullrich; T Peltomäki; C J Kellenberger; C A Karlo Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: N Ibrahim; A Parsa; B Hassan; P van der Stelt; I H A Aartman; D Wismeijer Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: K Vallaeys; A Kacem; H Legoux; M Le Tenier; C Hamitouche; R Arbab-Chirani Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 2.419