Two Experimental Methods to Integrate Intra-oral Scans into 3D Stereophotogrammetric Facial Images

Overview

Journal Clin Oral Investig

Date 2025 Jan 9

PMID 39786472

Authors

Reinout R P Schobben

Frits A Rangel

Robin Bruggink

Marjolein L D Crins-de Koning

Ewald M Bronkhorst

Edwin M Ongkosuwito

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: For this research two different ways for integrating intra-oral scans into three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetric images are analyzed and compared to the gold standard method.

Materials And Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed. For each patient a complete dataset was collected, which was used to generate 3D fusion models by three different methods: method A using cheek retractors, method B using a tracer and method C using full-skull CBCT. The experimental methods A and B were compared to the gold standard method C.

Results: A group of eighteen patients were included in this study. The translation (X, Y,Z), the euclidean distance and the rotation (roll, pitch, yaw) were calculated for both experimental methods A and B in comparison with the gold standard method C. Twelve out of fourteen measurements were clinically acceptable (below 2 mm or 2 degrees). Method A shows the highest deviation in the pitch-orientation for rotation (2.51 degrees, 95% CI [1.756 … 3.272]), while method B shows a higher deviation along the y-axis (1.85 mm, 95% CI [1.224 … 2.467]).

Conclusions: This study shows promising results of non-ionizing methods to integrate intra-oral scans into 3D stereophotogrammetric images. With improved accuracy in pitch in method A and translation along the Y-axis in method B, all measurements will be within the clinically acceptable threshold. However, since these two measurements exceed the clinically acceptable thresholds, the complete model positioning is less accurate. Therefore the main goal in further research should be to improve the accuracy of the pitch in method A and the translation along the Y-axis in method B. Additionally, for clinical use the biggest improvement could be gained by optimizing the clinical workflow and data processing.

Clinical Relevance: By using a non-ionizing 3D fusion model instead of a conventional cephalogram for treatment planning, the ionizing dose during orthodontic treatment can be significantly reduced.

References

Rangel F, Maal T, Berge S, van Vlijmen O, Plooij J, Schutyser F . Integration of digital dental casts in 3-dimensional facial photographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134(6):820-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.026. View

Ronsivalle V, Isola G, Lo Re G, Boato M, Leonardi R, Giudice A . Analysis of maxillary asymmetry before and after treatment of functional posterior cross-bite: a retrospective study using 3D imaging system and deviation analysis. Prog Orthod. 2023; 24(1):41. PMC: 10710971. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-023-00494-z. View

Ayaz I, Shaheen E, Aly M, Shujaat S, Gallo G, Coucke W . Accuracy and reliability of 2-dimensional photography versus 3-dimensional soft tissue imaging. Imaging Sci Dent. 2020; 50(1):15-22. PMC: 7078411. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2020.50.1.15. View

Lagravere M, Low C, Flores-Mir C, Chung R, Carey J, Heo G . Intraexaminer and interexaminer reliabilities of landmark identification on digitized lateral cephalograms and formatted 3-dimensional cone-beam computerized tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137(5):598-604. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.07.018. View

DeBoer M . [Justus Antoni Wilhelm van Loon, Dr. Med. H.C., D.D.S. (1876-1940). His merits as lecturer in orthodontics at the state university in Utrecht (1911-1940)]. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 1993; 100(2):75-82. View

Damstra J, Huddleston Slater J, Fourie Z, Ren Y . Reliability and the smallest detectable differences of lateral cephalometric measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 138(5):546.e1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.05.013. View

Proffit W, Phillips C, Turvey T . Stability following superior repositioning of the maxilla by LeFort I osteotomy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987; 92(2):151-61. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(87)90370-2. View

Kook M, Jung S, Park H, Oh H, Ryu S, Cho J . A comparison study of different facial soft tissue analysis methods. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014; 42(5):648-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2013.09.010. View

Baumrind S, Frantz R . The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod. 1971; 60(2):111-27. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(71)90028-5. View

10.

Bechtold T, Goz T, Schaupp E, Koos B, Godt A, Reinert S . Integration of a maxillary model into facial surface stereophotogrammetry. J Orofac Orthop. 2012; 73(2):126-37. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-011-0060-1. View

11.

Abdelkarim A, Jerrold L . Clinical considerations and potential liability associated with the use of ionizing radiation in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018; 154(1):15-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.01.005. View

12.

Kravitz N, Groth C, Jones P, Graham J, Redmond W . Intraoral digital scanners. J Clin Orthod. 2014; 48(6):337-47. View

13.

Soto-Alvarez C, Fonseca G, Viciano J, Aleman I, Rojas-Torres J, Zuniga M . Reliability, reproducibility and validity of the conventional buccolingual and mesiodistal measurements on 3D dental digital models obtained from intra-oral 3D scanner. Arch Oral Biol. 2019; 109:104575. DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2019.104575. View

14.

Nijkamp P, Habets L, Aartman I, Zentner A . The influence of cephalometrics on orthodontic treatment planning. Eur J Orthod. 2008; 30(6):630-5. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn059. View

15.

Baan F, Bruggink R, Nijsink J, Maal T, Ongkosuwito E . Fusion of intra-oral scans in cone-beam computed tomography scans. Clin Oral Investig. 2020; 25(1):77-85. PMC: 7785548. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03336-y. View

16.

Mai H, Lee D . The Effect of Perioral Scan and Artificial Skin Markers on the Accuracy of Virtual Dentofacial Integration: Stereophotogrammetry Versus Smartphone Three-Dimensional Face-Scanning. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(1). PMC: 7795468. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18010229. View

17.

Maal T, Plooij J, Rangel F, Mollemans W, Schutyser F, Berge S . The accuracy of matching three-dimensional photographs with skin surfaces derived from cone-beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 37(7):641-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2008.04.012. View

18.

Manosudprasit A, Haghi A, Allareddy V, Masoud M . Diagnosis and treatment planning of orthodontic patients with 3-dimensional dentofacial records. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017; 151(6):1083-1091. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.10.037. View

19.

Xiao Z, Liu Z, Gu Y . Integration of digital maxillary dental casts with 3D facial images in orthodontic patients. Angle Orthod. 2020; 90(3):397-404. PMC: 8032295. DOI: 10.2319/071619-473.1. View

20.

Miloro M, Borba A, Ribeiro-Junior O, Naclerio-Homem M, Jungner M . Is there consistency in cephalometric landmark identification amongst oral and maxillofacial surgeons?. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 43(4):445-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2013.08.007. View