» Articles » PMID: 38002450

Novel Procedure for Automatic Registration Between Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Intraoral Scan Data Supported with 3D Segmentation

Overview
Date 2023 Nov 25
PMID 38002450
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In contemporary practice, intraoral scans and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) are widely adopted techniques for tooth localization and the acquisition of comprehensive three-dimensional models. Despite their utility, each dataset presents inherent merits and limitations, prompting the pursuit of an amalgamated solution for optimization. Thus, this research introduces a novel 3D registration approach aimed at harmonizing these distinct datasets to offer a holistic perspective. In the pre-processing phase, a retrained Mask-RCNN is deployed on both sagittal and panoramic projections to partition upper and lower teeth from the encompassing CBCT raw data. Simultaneously, a chromatic classification model is proposed for segregating gingival tissue from tooth structures in intraoral scan data. Subsequently, the segregated datasets are aligned based on dental crowns, employing the robust RANSAC and ICP algorithms. To assess the proposed methodology's efficacy, the Euclidean distance between corresponding points is statistically evaluated. Additionally, dental experts, including two orthodontists and an experienced general dentist, evaluate the clinical potential by measuring distances between landmarks on tooth surfaces. The computed error in corresponding point distances between intraoral scan data and CBCT data in the automatically registered datasets utilizing the proposed technique is quantified at 0.234 ± 0.019 mm, which is significantly below the 0.3 mm CBCT voxel size. Moreover, the average measurement discrepancy among expert-identified landmarks ranges from 0.368 to 1.079 mm, underscoring the promise of the proposed method.

Citing Articles

Automatic multimodal registration of cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral scans: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zheng Q, Wu Y, Chen J, Wang X, Zhou M, Li H Clin Oral Investig. 2025; 29(2):97.

PMID: 39878846 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-025-06183-x.


Application of a 3D Fusion Model to Evaluate the Efficacy of Clear Aligner Therapy in Malocclusion Patients: Prospective Observational Study.

Liu C, Liu Y, Yi C, Xie T, Tian J, Deng P J Med Internet Res. 2024; 27:e67378.

PMID: 39715692 PMC: 11780295. DOI: 10.2196/67378.

References
1.
Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

2.
Davidowitz G, Kotick P . The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2011; 55(3):559-70, ix. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2011.02.011. View

3.
Hamilton A, Singh A, Friedland B, Jamjoom F, Griseto N, Gallucci G . The impact of cone beam computer tomography field of view on the precision of digital intra-oral scan registration for static computer-assisted implant surgery: A CBCT analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022; 33(12):1273-1281. PMC: 10091816. DOI: 10.1111/clr.14009. View

4.
Park J, Hwang C, Choi Y, Houschyar K, Yu J, Bae S . Registration of digital dental models and cone-beam computed tomography images using 3-dimensional planning software: Comparison of the accuracy according to scanning methods and software. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020; 157(6):843-851. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.12.013. View

5.
He K, Gkioxari G, Dollar P, Girshick R . Mask R-CNN. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2018; 42(2):386-397. DOI: 10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2844175. View