Schobben Reinout R P, Rangel Frits A, Bruggink Robin, Crins-de Koning Marjolein L D, Bronkhorst Ewald M, Ongkosuwito Edwin M
Department of Dentistry Section Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Medical Center, Radboudumc 3DLab, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Clin Oral Investig. 2025 Jan 9;29(1):54. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-06138-8.
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.
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.
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]).
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.
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.
本研究分析并比较了将口腔内扫描整合到三维（3D）立体摄影测量图像中的两种不同方法，并与金标准方法进行对比。
进行了一项横断面研究。为每位患者收集了完整的数据集，通过三种不同方法用于生成3D融合模型：方法A使用脸颊牵开器，方法B使用示踪剂，方法C使用全头颅CBCT。将实验方法A和B与金标准方法C进行比较。
本研究纳入了一组18名患者。计算了实验方法A和B与金标准方法C相比的平移（X、Y、Z）、欧几里得距离和旋转（滚动、俯仰、偏航）。与金标准方法C相比，14项测量中有12项在临床上是可接受的（低于2毫米或2度）。方法A在旋转的俯仰方向上显示出最大偏差（2.51度，95%可信区间[1.756…3.272]），而方法B在Y轴方向上显示出更大偏差（1.85毫米, 95%可信区间[1.224…2.467]）。
本研究显示了将口腔内扫描整合到3D立体摄影测量图像中的非电离方法的良好结果。随着方法A在俯仰方向上的精度提高以及方法B在Y轴方向上的平移精度提高，所有测量将在临床可接受阈值内。然而，由于这两项测量超过了临床可接受阈值，完整模型定位的准确性较低。因此，进一步研究的主要目标应是提高方法A在俯仰方向上的精度以及方法B在Y轴方向上的平移精度。此外，对于临床应用，通过优化临床工作流程和数据处理可获得最大改进。
通过使用非电离3D融合模型而非传统头颅侧位片进行治疗计划，正畸治疗期间的电离辐射剂量可显著降低。
