OBJECTIVES: Guided implant surgery (GIS) requires alignment of virtual models to reconstructions of three-dimensional imaging. Accurate visualization of the tooth surfaces in the imaging datasets is mandatory. In this prospective clinical study, in vivo tooth surface accuracy was determined for GIS using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and dental magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: CBCT and 3-Tesla dMRI were performed in 22 consecutive patients (mean age: 54.4 ± 15.2 years; mean number of restorations per jaw: 6.7 ± 2.7). Altogether, 92 teeth were included (31 incisor, 29 canines, 20 premolars, and 12 molars). Surfaces were reconstructed semi-automatically and registered to a reference standard (3D scans of stone models made from full-arch polyether impressions). Reliability of both methods was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Accuracy was evaluated using the two one-sided tests procedure with a predefined equivalence margin of ±0.2 mm root mean square (RMS). RESULTS: Inter- and intrarater reliability of tooth surface reconstruction were comparable for CBCT and dMRI. Geometric deviations were 0.102 ± 0.042 mm RMS for CBCT and 0.261 ± 0.08 mm RMS for dMRI. For a predefined equivalence margin, CBCT and dMRI were statistically equivalent. CBCT, however, was significantly more accurate (p ≤ .0001). For both imaging techniques, accuracy did not differ substantially between different tooth types. CONCLUSION: Cone-beam computed tomography is an accurate and reliable imaging technique for tooth surfaces in vivo, even in the presence of metal artifacts. In comparison, dMRI in vivo accuracy is lower. Still, it allows for tooth surface reconstruction in satisfactory detail and within acceptable acquisition times.
OBJECTIVES: Guided implant surgery (GIS) requires alignment of virtual models to reconstructions of three-dimensional imaging. Accurate visualization of the tooth surfaces in the imaging datasets is mandatory. In this prospective clinical study, in vivo tooth surface accuracy was determined for GIS using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and dental magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: CBCT and 3-Tesla dMRI were performed in 22 consecutive patients (mean age: 54.4 ± 15.2 years; mean number of restorations per jaw: 6.7 ± 2.7). Altogether, 92 teeth were included (31 incisor, 29 canines, 20 premolars, and 12 molars). Surfaces were reconstructed semi-automatically and registered to a reference standard (3D scans of stone models made from full-arch polyether impressions). Reliability of both methods was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Accuracy was evaluated using the two one-sided tests procedure with a predefined equivalence margin of ±0.2 mm root mean square (RMS). RESULTS: Inter- and intrarater reliability of tooth surface reconstruction were comparable for CBCT and dMRI. Geometric deviations were 0.102 ± 0.042 mm RMS for CBCT and 0.261 ± 0.08 mm RMS for dMRI. For a predefined equivalence margin, CBCT and dMRI were statistically equivalent. CBCT, however, was significantly more accurate (p ≤ .0001). For both imaging techniques, accuracy did not differ substantially between different tooth types. CONCLUSION: Cone-beam computed tomography is an accurate and reliable imaging technique for tooth surfaces in vivo, even in the presence of metal artifacts. In comparison, dMRI in vivo accuracy is lower. Still, it allows for tooth surface reconstruction in satisfactory detail and within acceptable acquisition times.
Authors: Julio Rojo-Sanchis; David Soto-Peñaloza; David Peñarrocha-Oltra; Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago; José Viña-Almunia Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Christopher Herpel; Franz Sebastian Schwindling; Thomas Held; Leo Christ; Kristin Lang; Martha Schwindling; Julius Moratin; Karim Zaoui; Tracy Moutsis; Peter Plinkert; Klaus Herfarth; Christian Freudlsperger; Peter Rammelsberg; Jürgen Debus; Sebastian Adeberg Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Tim Hilgenfeld; Alexander Juerchott; Johann M E Jende; Peter Rammelsberg; Sabine Heiland; Martin Bendszus; Franz S Schwindling Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 5.315