Ketu P Lincoln1, Albert Y T Sun2, Thomas J Prihoda3, Alan J Sutton4. 1. Department of Graduate Prosthodontics, USAF, Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, TX. 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan. 3. Department of Pathology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX. 4. Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Colorado School of Dental Medicine, Aurora, CO.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the accuracy of facial models fabricated using facial moulage impression methods to the three-dimensional printed (3DP) fabrication methods using soft tissue images obtained from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D stereophotogrammetry (3D-SPG) scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A reference phantom model was fabricated using a 3D-SPG image of a human control form with ten fiducial markers placed on common anthropometric landmarks. This image was converted into the investigation control phantom model (CPM) using 3DP methods. The CPM was attached to a camera tripod for ease of image capture. Three CBCT and three 3D-SPG images of the CPM were captured. The DICOM and STL files from the three 3dMD and three CBCT were imported to the 3DP, and six testing models were made. Reversible hydrocolloid and dental stone were used to make three facial moulages of the CPM, and the impressions/casts were poured in type IV gypsum dental stone. A coordinate measuring machine (CMM) was used to measure the distances between each of the ten fiducial markers. Each measurement was made using one point as a static reference to the other nine points. The same measuring procedures were accomplished on all specimens. All measurements were compared between specimens and the control. The data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey pairwise comparison of the raters, methods, and fiducial markers. RESULTS: The ANOVA multiple comparisons showed significant difference among the three methods (p < 0.05). Further, the interaction of methods versus fiducial markers also showed significant difference (p < 0.05). The CBCT and facial moulage method showed the greatest accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: 3DP models fabricated using 3D-SPG showed statistical difference in comparison to the models fabricated using the traditional method of facial moulage and 3DP models fabricated from CBCT imaging. 3DP models fabricated using 3D-SPG were less accurate than the CPM and models fabricated using facial moulage and CBCT imaging techniques.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the accuracy of facial models fabricated using facial moulage impression methods to the three-dimensional printed (3DP) fabrication methods using soft tissue images obtained from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D stereophotogrammetry (3D-SPG) scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A reference phantom model was fabricated using a 3D-SPG image of a human control form with ten fiducial markers placed on common anthropometric landmarks. This image was converted into the investigation control phantom model (CPM) using 3DP methods. The CPM was attached to a camera tripod for ease of image capture. Three CBCT and three 3D-SPG images of the CPM were captured. The DICOM and STL files from the three 3dMD and three CBCT were imported to the 3DP, and six testing models were made. Reversible hydrocolloid and dental stone were used to make three facial moulages of the CPM, and the impressions/casts were poured in type IV gypsum dental stone. A coordinate measuring machine (CMM) was used to measure the distances between each of the ten fiducial markers. Each measurement was made using one point as a static reference to the other nine points. The same measuring procedures were accomplished on all specimens. All measurements were compared between specimens and the control. The data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey pairwise comparison of the raters, methods, and fiducial markers. RESULTS: The ANOVA multiple comparisons showed significant difference among the three methods (p < 0.05). Further, the interaction of methods versus fiducial markers also showed significant difference (p < 0.05). The CBCT and facial moulage method showed the greatest accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: 3DP models fabricated using 3D-SPG showed statistical difference in comparison to the models fabricated using the traditional method of facial moulage and 3DP models fabricated from CBCT imaging. 3DP models fabricated using 3D-SPG were less accurate than the CPM and models fabricated using facial moulage and CBCT imaging techniques.
Authors: Zhenqi Zhao; Lizhe Xie; Dan Cao; Iman Izadikhah; Pengcheng Gao; Yang Zhao; Bin Yan Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 2.419