Mohammed A Q Al-Saleh1, Kumaradevan Punithakumar2, Jacob L Jaremko3, Noura A Alsufyani4, Pierre Boulanger5, Paul W Major6. 1. PhD Student, Orthodontic Graduate Program, School of Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: m.alsaleh@ualberta.ca. 2. Assistant Professor, Servier Virtual Cardiac Centre, Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute and Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 4. Assistant Professor, School of Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 5. Professor, Department of Computing Science, Faculty of Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 6. Lead, School of Dentistry, Professor and Chair of the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of cross-modality image registration procedure between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: In vitro diagnostic MRI and CBCT images of 5 cadaver swine heads were obtained prospectively. Five radiopaque fiducial markers were attached to each cadaver skull by using resin screws. Automatic MRI-CBCT rigid registrations were performed. The specimens were then scanned using a 3-dimensional (3-D) laser scanner. The 3-D coordinate points for the centroid of the attached fiducial markers from laser scan were identified and considered ground truth. The distances between marker centroids were measured with MRI, CBCT, and MRI-CBCT. Accuracy was calculated by using repeated measures analysis of variance and mean difference values. The registration method was repeated 10 times for each specimen in MRI to measure the average error. RESULTS: There was no significant difference (P > .05) in mean distances of the markers between all images and the ground truth. The distances' mean difference between MRI, CBCT, and MRI-CBCT and the ground truth were 0.2 ± 1.1 mm, 0.3 ± 1.0 mm, 0.2 ± 1.2 mm, respectively. The detected method error ranged between 0.06 mm and 0.1 mm. CONCLUSION: The cross-modality image registration algorithm is accurate for head MRI-CBCT registration.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of cross-modality image registration procedure between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: In vitro diagnostic MRI and CBCT images of 5 cadaver swine heads were obtained prospectively. Five radiopaque fiducial markers were attached to each cadaver skull by using resin screws. Automatic MRI-CBCT rigid registrations were performed. The specimens were then scanned using a 3-dimensional (3-D) laser scanner. The 3-D coordinate points for the centroid of the attached fiducial markers from laser scan were identified and considered ground truth. The distances between marker centroids were measured with MRI, CBCT, and MRI-CBCT. Accuracy was calculated by using repeated measures analysis of variance and mean difference values. The registration method was repeated 10 times for each specimen in MRI to measure the average error. RESULTS: There was no significant difference (P > .05) in mean distances of the markers between all images and the ground truth. The distances' mean difference between MRI, CBCT, and MRI-CBCT and the ground truth were 0.2 ± 1.1 mm, 0.3 ± 1.0 mm, 0.2 ± 1.2 mm, respectively. The detected method error ranged between 0.06 mm and 0.1 mm. CONCLUSION: The cross-modality image registration algorithm is accurate for head MRI-CBCT registration.
Authors: Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger; Jan Hourfar; Cornelia Kober; Jörg Alexander Lisson Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 1.938
Authors: Mohammed A Q Al-Saleh; Kumaradevan Punithakumar; Manuel Lagravere; Pierre Boulanger; Jacob L Jaremko; John Wolfaardt; Paul W Major; Hadi Seikaly Journal: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-01-28
Authors: Mohammed A Q Al-Saleh; Kumaradevan Punithakumar; Manuel Lagravere; Pierre Boulanger; Jacob L Jaremko; Paul W Major Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 3.240