Anna Seidel1, Bastian Bergauer2, Michael Lell3, Thomas Buder4, Cornelius von Wilmowsky5, Eva Dach1, Manfred Wichmann1, Ragai-Edward Matta1. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Erlangen University Hospital, Glueckstraße 11, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Erlangen University Hospital, Glueckstraße 11, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. bastian.bergauer@gmx.de. 3. Institute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Nuernberg, Paracelsus Medical University, Prof.-Ernst-Nathan-Str. 1, 90419, Nuremberg, Germany. 4. Department I, Institute of Anatomy, Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Krankenhausstraße 9, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. 5. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Erlangen University Hospital, Glueckstraße 11, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Advanced imaging modalities, such as multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), greatly facilitate diagnostic medicine. In radiological research, it is important to know how accurately a scanned object is visualized, and whether the methodology leads to image distortion. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether formalin fixation impacted the accuracy of virtual 3D bone models generated via CBCT and MSCT using a software-based evaluation method that excluded human measurement errors. METHODS: A head specimen, with and without formalin preservation, was subjected to MSCT and CBCT scans using the manufacturers' predefined scanning protocols. Digital models of the lower jaw were constructed and superimposed with a master model generated based on optical scanning with an industrial non-contact scanner. Means and standard deviations were calculated to assess accuracy, and a t test was used for comparisons between the fixed and unfixed specimens. RESULTS: The extent of discrepancy between the fixed and unfixed specimens was analyzed using a total of 200 points (n = 200) in each specimen state. The mean deviation between states was 0.01 mm for MSCT (at both 80 and 140 kV). Mean values from CBCT at 0.4 voxel did not differ between states. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that formalin fixation of an anatomical specimen does not substantially affect the accuracy of a three-dimensional image generated with CBCT and MSCT. Thus, fixed specimen can be used in future investigations of 3D models without concerns regarding the accuracy.
PURPOSE: Advanced imaging modalities, such as multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), greatly facilitate diagnostic medicine. In radiological research, it is important to know how accurately a scanned object is visualized, and whether the methodology leads to image distortion. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether formalin fixation impacted the accuracy of virtual 3D bone models generated via CBCT and MSCT using a software-based evaluation method that excluded human measurement errors. METHODS: A head specimen, with and without formalin preservation, was subjected to MSCT and CBCT scans using the manufacturers' predefined scanning protocols. Digital models of the lower jaw were constructed and superimposed with a master model generated based on optical scanning with an industrial non-contact scanner. Means and standard deviations were calculated to assess accuracy, and a t test was used for comparisons between the fixed and unfixed specimens. RESULTS: The extent of discrepancy between the fixed and unfixed specimens was analyzed using a total of 200 points (n = 200) in each specimen state. The mean deviation between states was 0.01 mm for MSCT (at both 80 and 140 kV). Mean values from CBCT at 0.4 voxel did not differ between states. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that formalin fixation of an anatomical specimen does not substantially affect the accuracy of a three-dimensional image generated with CBCT and MSCT. Thus, fixed specimen can be used in future investigations of 3D models without concerns regarding the accuracy.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D model; CBCT; Digital imaging; Fixation; Formaldehyde; MSCT
Authors: Niels Hammer; Christian Voigt; Michael Werner; Falk Hoffmann; Klaus Bente; Holger Kunze; Roger Scholz; Hanno Steinke Journal: J Mech Behav Biomed Mater Date: 2013-09-18
Authors: J L A N Murk; G Posthuma; A J Koster; H J Geuze; A J Verkleij; M J Kleijmeer; B M Humbel Journal: J Microsc Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 1.758
Authors: Marian Willner; Gabriel Fior; Mathias Marschner; Lorenz Birnbacher; Jonathan Schock; Christian Braun; Alexander A Fingerle; Peter B Noël; Ernst J Rummeny; Franz Pfeiffer; Julia Herzen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jan-Peter Grunz; Andreas Max Weng; Andreas Steven Kunz; Maike Veyhl-Wichmann; Rainer Schmitt; Carsten Herbert Gietzen; Lenhard Pennig; Stefan Herz; Süleyman Ergün; Thorsten Alexander Bley; Tobias Gassenmaier Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2020-09-08