Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric analysis in virtual dentoskeletal models by comparing it with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) 3D models and identifying any significant differences. The virtual dentoskeletal models are created by integrating CBCT with digital dental models. The dental casts are digitized using the structure-from-motion (SfM) photogrammetry method to create digital 3D models. The research included seven patients who underwent orthognathic surgery. The 3D cephalometric analysis was calculated using 27 cephalometric landmarks and 18 measurements (14 angles and four linear). Statistical analyses included paired sample t-tests and Bland-Altman plots. Statistical analysis showed that the differences of the linear and angular measurements are statistically significant for differences like U1/NA, U1-NA, U1/SN, L1-NB, U1/L1, overjet, and overbite, with the p-value < 0.05. The mean differences ranged from -1.26° to 1.66° for angular measurements and 0.057mm to 0.329mm for linear measurements. Notably, the agreement interval shows a substantial difference for angular measurements (-4.38 to 4.38) in the Bland-Altman plot, while a minor difference was noted for linear measurements (-1.34 to 0.91). The differences were evaluated clinically by comparing them to an acceptable clinical boundary of 0.5 mm. Integrating two models to create a virtual dentoskeletal model is a robust technique that enhances the precision of the dental region in the resulting 3D model. In addition to improving the accuracy of 3D cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery planning and orthodontic treatment, this innovation holds promise as a valuable tool for dentists and orthodontists. This technology has the potential to enhance patient care in dentistry.

Keyword

Virtual dentoskeletal model, Structure-from-motion photogrammetry method, CBCT scan, Digital dental model, 3D cephalometric analysis.

Cite this article

Mahmood RS, Hamandi SJ, Al-Mahdi AH.Three-dimensional cephalometric analysis of virtual dentoskeletal model. International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration. 2024;11(111):205-218. DOI:10.19101/IJATEE.2023.10101940

Refference

[1]De WO, Baan F, Verhamme L, Breuning H, Kuijpers-jagtman AM, Maal T. A novel method for fusion of intra-oral scans and cone-beam computed tomography scans for orthognathic surgery planning. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 2016; 44(2):160-6.

[2]Gateno J, Xia J, Teichgraeber JF, Rosen A. A new technique for the creation of a computerized composite skull model. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2003; 61(2):222-7.

[3]Gribel BF, Gribel MN, Frazão DC, Mcnamara JJA, Manzi FR. Accuracy and reliability of craniometric measurements on lateral cephalometry and 3D measurements on CBCT scans. The Angle Orthodontist. 2011; 81(1):26-35.

[4]Torres HR, Morais P, Fritze A, Oliveira B, Veloso F, Rüdiger M, et al. 3D facial landmark localization for cephalometric analysis. In 44th annual international conference of the engineering in medicine & biology society 2022 (pp. 1016-9). IEEE.

[5]Zamora N, Llamas JM, Cibrián R, Gandia JL, Paredes V. Cephalometric measurements from 3D reconstructed images compared with conventional 2D images. The Angle Orthodontist. 2011; 81(5):856-64.

[6]Zhang D, Wang S, Li J, Zhou Y. Novel method of constructing a stable reference frame for 3-dimensional cephalometric analysis. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2018; 154(3):397-404.

[7]De OAE, Cevidanes LH, Phillips C, Motta A, Burke B, Tyndall D. Observer reliability of three-dimensional cephalometric landmark identification on cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2009; 107(2):256-65.

[8]Devanna R. Two-dimensional to three-dimensional: a new three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography cephalometric analysis. Journal of Orthodontic Research. 2015; 3(1):30-7.

[9]Hassan B, Van DSP, Sanderink G. Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2009; 31(2):129-34.

[10]Steiner CC. The use of cephalometrics as an aid to planning and assessing orthodontic treatment: report of a case. American Journal of Orthodontics. 1960; 46(10):721-35.

[11]Xia J, Ip HH, Samman N, Wang D, Kot CS, Yeung RW, et al. Computer-assisted three-dimensional surgical planning and simulation: 3D virtual osteotomy. International Journal of oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2000; 29(1):11-7.

[12]Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, Hassan B, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health. 2018; 18(1):1-6.

[13]Swennen GR, Mommaerts MY, Abeloos J, De CC, Lamoral P, Neyt N, et al. A cone-beam CT based technique to augment the 3D virtual skull model with a detailed dental surface. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2009; 38(1):48-57.

[14]Swennen GR, Mollemans W, De CC, Abeloos J, Lamoral P, Lippens F, et al. A cone-beam computed tomography triple scan procedure to obtain a three-dimensional augmented virtual skull model appropriate for orthognathic surgery planning. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2009; 20(2):297-307.

[15]Swennen GR, Schutyser FA, Hausamen JE. Three-dimensional cephalometry: a color atlas and manual. Springer Science & Business Media; 2005.

[16]Khazal SA, Ali MH. An accelerated iterative cone beam computed tomography image reconstruction approach. Al-Nahrain Journal for Engineering Sciences. 2019; 22(4):307-14.

[17]Mahmood RS, Hamandi SJ, Al-mahdi AH. Creating a digital 3D model of the dental cast using structure-from-motion photogrammetry technique. International Journal of Online & Biomedical Engineering. 2023; 19(3).

[18]Asquith J, Gillgrass T, Mossey P. Three-dimensional imaging of orthodontic models: a pilot study. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2007; 29(5):517-22.

[19]Rangel FA, Maal TJ, De Koning MJ, Bronkhorst EM, Bergé SJ, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Integration of digital dental casts in cone beam computed tomography scans—a clinical validation study. Clinical oral investigations. 2018:1215-22.

[20]Montúfar J, Romero M, Scougall-vilchis RJ. Hybrid approach for automatic cephalometric landmark annotation on cone-beam computed tomography volumes. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2018; 154(1):140-50.

[21]Swennen GR, Schutyser F, Barth EL, De GP, De MA. A new method of 3-D cephalometry part I: the anatomic cartesian 3-D reference system. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2006; 17(2):314-25.

[22]Dot G, Schouman T, Chang S, Rafflenbeul F, Kerbrat A, Rouch P, et al. Automatic 3-dimensional cephalometric landmarking via deep learning. Journal of Dental Research. 2022; 101(11):1380-7.

[23]Rudolph H, Salmen H, Moldan M, Kuhn K, Sichwardt V, Wöstmann B, et al. Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2016; 24:85-94.

[24]Sason GK, Mistry G, Tabassum R, Shetty O. A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: an in vivo study. The Journal of the Indian Prosthodontic Society. 2018; 18(2):108-16.

[25]Zotti F, Rosolin L, Bersani M, Poscolere A, Pappalardo D, Zerman N. Digital dental models: is photogrammetry an alternative to dental extraoral and intraoral scanners? Dentistry Journal. 2022; 10(2):1-15.

[26]Ayoub AF, Rehab M, Oneil M, Khambay B, Ju X, Barbenel J, et al. A novel approach for planning orthognathic surgery: the integration of dental casts into three-dimensional printed mandibular models. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2014; 43(4):454-9.

[27]Baan F, Bruggink R, Nijsink J, Maal TJ, Ongkosuwito EM. Fusion of intra-oral scans in cone-beam computed tomography scans. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2021; 25:77-85.

[28]Dai F, Chen S, Feng T, Lu W, Chen G, Jiang J, et al. Accuracy of integration of dental cast and cephalograms compared with cone-beam computed tomography: a comparative study. Odontology. 2023; 111(1):238-47.

[29]Noh H, Nabha W, Cho JH, Hwang HS. Registration accuracy in the integration of laser-scanned dental images into maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography images. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2011; 140(4):585-91.

[30]Nkenke E, Zachow S, Benz M, Maier T, Veit K, Kramer M, et al. Fusion of computed tomography data and optical 3D images of the dentition for streak artefact correction in the simulation of orthognathic surgery. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2004; 33(4):226-32.

[31]Al-rudainy D, Al-lami HA, Yang L. Validity and reliability of three-dimensional modeling of orthodontic dental casts using smartphone-based photogrammetric technology. Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists. 2023; 12(1):9-14.

[32]Fu X, Peng C, Li Z, Liu S, Tan M, Song J. The application of multi-baseline digital close-range photogrammetry in three-dimensional imaging and measurement of dental casts. PLoS One. 2017; 12(6):1-13.

[33]Silvester CM, Hillson S. A critical assessment of the potential for structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry to produce high fidelity 3D dental models. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2020; 173(2):381-92.

[34]Stuani VT, Ferreira R, Manfredi GG, Cardoso MV, Santana AC. Photogrammetry as an alternative for acquiring digital dental models: a proof of concept. Medical Hypotheses. 2019; 128:43-9.

[35]Zou B, Kim JH, Kim SH, Choi TH, Shin Y, Kook YA, et al. Accuracy of a surface-based fusion method when integrating digital models and the cone beam computed tomography scans with metal artifacts. Scientific Reports. 2022; 12(1):1-8.

[36]Lee SC, Hwang HS, Lee KC. Accuracy of deep learning-based integrated tooth models by merging intraoral scans and CBCT scans for 3D evaluation of root position during orthodontic treatment. Progress in Orthodontics. 2022; 23(1):15.

[37]Neelapu BC, Kharbanda OP, Sardana V, Gupta A, Vasamsetti S, Balachandran R, et al. Automatic localization of three-dimensional cephalometric landmarks on CBCT images by extracting symmetry features of the skull. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2018; 47(2):1-12.

[38]Ed-dhahraouy M, Riri H, Ezzahmouly M, Aghoutan H, Bourzgui F. Proposition of local automatic algorithm for landmark detection in 3D cephalometry. Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics. 2021; 10(2):707-15.

[39]Varghese S, Kailasam V, Padmanabhan S, Vikraman B, Chithranjan A. Evaluation of the accuracy of linear measurements on spiral computed tomography-derived three-dimensional images and its comparison with digital cephalometric radiography. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2010; 39(4):216-23.

[40]Periago DR, Scarfe WC, Moshiri M, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. The Angle Orthodontist. 2008; 78(3):387-95.

[41]Bholsithi W, Tharanon W, Chintakanon K, Komolpis R, Sinthanayothin C. 3D vs. 2D cephalometric analysis comparisons with repeated measurements from 20 Thai males and 20 Thai females. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal. 2009; 5(4): e21.

[42]Li C, Teixeira H, Tanna N, Zheng Z, Chen SH, Zou M, et al. The reliability of two-and three-dimensional cephalometric measurements: a CBCT study. Diagnostics. 2021; 11(12):2292.

[43]Juerchott A, Freudlsperger C, Weber D, Jende JM, Saleem MA, Zingler S, et al. In vivo comparison of MRI-and CBCT-based 3D cephalometric analysis: beginning of a non-ionizing diagnostic era in craniomaxillofacial imaging? European Radiology. 2020; 30:1488-97.

[44]Oz U, Orhan K, Abe N. Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2011; 40(8):492-500.

[45]Mangal U, Hwang JJ, Jo H, Lee SM, Jung YH, Cho BH, et al. Effects of changes in the frankfort horizontal plane definition on the three-dimensional cephalometric evaluation of symmetry. Applied Sciences. 2020; 10(22):1-12.

[46]Pittayapat P, Jacobs R, Bornstein MM, Odri GA, Lambrichts I, Willems G, et al. Three-dimensional frankfort horizontal plane for 3D cephalometry: a comparative assessment of conventional versus novel landmarks and horizontal planes. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2018; 40(3):239-48.

[47]Schieffer L, Latzko L, Ulmer H, Schenz-spisic N, Lepperdinger U, Paulus M, et al. Comparison between stone and digital cast measurements in mixed dentition: validity, reliability, reproducibility, and objectivity. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics/Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopädie. 2022; 83(Suppl 1):75-84.