不同分割阈值重建锥形束CT数字化牙模型的精度研究

doi:10.19438/j.cjoms.2019.03.006

中国口腔颌面外科杂志 ›› 2019, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (3): 221-224.doi: 10.19438/j.cjoms.2019.03.006

不同分割阈值重建锥形束CT数字化牙模型的精度研究

沈宇清¹, 刘文娟², 孙健¹, 余优成¹, 周倩蓉¹, 徐艺¹

1.复旦大学附属中山医院口腔科,上海 200032;
2.复旦大学附属中山医院徐汇医院,徐汇区中心医院口腔科,上海 200031

收稿日期:2019-03-20 修回日期:2019-04-03 出版日期:2019-05-20 发布日期:2019-06-21
通讯作者: 孙健,E-mail：sun.jian@zs-hospital.sh.cn
作者简介:沈宇清（1988-）,女,硕士,住院医师,E-mail：syq1222@126.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金（81670956,81870793）; 上海市科委政府间国际合作项目（16520710400）; 复旦大学附属中山医院青年基金（2018ZSQN52）

Accuracy of digital models reconstructed by cone-beam CT under different segmentation thresholds

SHEN Yu-qing¹, LIU Wen-juan², SUN Jian¹, YU You-cheng¹, ZHOU Qian-rong¹, XU Yi¹

1.Department of Stomatology, Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University. Shanghai, 200032;
2.Department of Stomatology, Xuhui Central Hospital. Shanghai. 200031, China

Received:2019-03-20 Revised:2019-04-03 Online:2019-05-20 Published:2019-06-21

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的: 比较不同分割阈值对锥形束CT（CBCT）重建数字化牙模型测量精度的影响。方法: 选取20例需拔除智牙患者的CBCT,应用Mimics软件,根据不同灰度值（grey value,GV）进行阈值分割后,重建三维数字化模型。所有患者均取硅橡胶印模,灌制石膏模型。分别测量数字化模型和石膏模型上、下颌全牙列牙的近远中径。采用SPSS 16.0软件包中的配对t 检验、散点图和组内相关系数（intraclass correlation coefficient,ICC）,评估不同分割阈值对重建的CBCT数字化模型测量精度的影响。结果: 不同分割阈值重建的CBCT数字化牙模型与石膏模型测量项目之间均数的差范围为-0.36~0.32 mm。以GV 1200、1400阈值分割后,重建的数字化模型测量值与石膏模型测量值无统计学差异（P>0.01）,其余阈值重建的数字化模型测量值与石膏模型有统计学差异（P<0.01）。CBCT重建数字化模型与石膏模型的测量值ICC均>0.95,其中,GV1200阈值重建的数字化模型ICC最高,为0.995。结论: 不同分割阈值对CBCT重建数字化牙模型的精度有一定影响,对不同结构的侧重也不同,临床上应加以选择调整。

关键词: 锥形束CT, 数字化模型, 阈值, 灰度值, 精度

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of digital models reconstructed by cone-beam CT(CBCT) under different segmentation thresholds (STs). METHODS: A total of 20 patients who had CBCT images for diagnostic purposes were included in this study. Three-dimensional digital models were reconstructed by CBCT scans using different STs（based on gray value (GV) from 200 to 1800,gap 200）with Mimics 15.01. Plaster models were obtained, and mesiodistal diameter of each tooth was measured in all models. Paired t test was used to evaluate the accuracy of the digital models in comparison to the plaster models. Scatter plots and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were also used to evaluate the correlation between the models with SPSS 16.0 software package. RESULTS: The mean difference between digital models and plaster model was from-0.36 mm to 0.32 mm. There was no significant difference between the plaster model and the digital models reconstructed under ST GV 1200 and 1400 (P>0.01). The measurements of digital models reconstructed under other STs were different from the plaster ones (P<0.01). ICCs between digital models and plaster model were all >0.95. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of CBCT reconstructed 3-dimensional digital model is influenced by different STs. Therefore, selection needs to be made in clinical application.

Key words: Cone-beam CT, Digital model, Segmentation threshold, Gray value, Accuracy

中图分类号:

R782.1

沈宇清, 刘文娟, 孙健, 余优成, 周倩蓉, 徐艺. 不同分割阈值重建锥形束CT数字化牙模型的精度研究[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2019, 17(3): 221-224.

SHEN Yu-qing, LIU Wen-juan, SUN Jian, YU You-cheng, ZHOU Qian-rong, XU Yi. Accuracy of digital models reconstructed by cone-beam CT under different segmentation thresholds[J]. China J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2019, 17(3): 221-224.

参考文献

[1] Baumgaertel S, Palomo JM, Palomo L, et al.Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2009, 136(1):19-25.
[2] Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ, et al. Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomography-derived surface models of different voxel sizes[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2010, 137(1):16.e1-6.
[3] Maroua AL, Ajaj M, Hajeer MY.The accuracy and reproducibility of linear measurements made on CBCT-derived digital models[J]. J Contemp Dent Pract, 2016, 17(4):294-299.
[4] Liu Y, Olszewski R, Alexandroni ES, et al.The validity of in vivo tooth volume determinations from cone-beam computed tomography[J]. Angle Orthod, 2010, 80(1):160-166.
[5] Maret D, Molinier F, Braga J, et al.Accuracy of 3D reconstructions based on cone beam computed tomography[J]. J Dent Res, 2010, 89(12):1465-1469.
[6] Wang Y, He S, Yu L, et al.Accuracy of volumetric measurement of teeth in vivo based on cone beam computer tomography[J]. Orthod Craniofac Res, 2011, 14(4):206-212.
[7] 王剑锋,魏利敏,杨静远. 锥形束CT数字化牙颌模型线性测量的可重复性及精确性研究[J].口腔颌面修复学杂, 2015, 16(2): 89-92.
[8] Fourie Z, Damstra J, Schepers R, et al.Segmentation process significantly infiuences the accuracy of 3D surface models derived from cone beam computed tomography[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2012, 81(4):e524-530.
[9] Sur J, Seki K, Koizumi H, et al.Effects of tube current on cone-beam computerized tomography image quality for presurgical implant planning in vitro[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2010, 110(3):e29-33.
[10] Shaheen E, Khalil W, Ezeldeen M, et al.Accuracy of segmentation of tooth structures using 3 different CBCT machines[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2017, 123(1):123-128.
[11] Ye N, Jian F, Xue J, et al.Accuracy of in-vitro tooth volumetric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2012, 142(6):879-887.
[12] Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, et al.Artefacts in CBCT: a review[J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2011, 40(5):265-273.
[13] Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer SR, et al.CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable?[J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2015, 44(1):20140238.
[14] Razi T, Niknami M, Alavi GF.Relationship between Hounsfield Unit in CT scan and grey scale in CBCT[J]. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects, 2014, 8(2):107-110.
[15] Valiyaparambil JV, Yamany I, Ortiz D et al. Bone Quality Evaluation: comparison of cone beam computed tomography and subjective surgical assessment[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2012, 27(5):1271-1277.
[16] Poleti ML, Fernandes TM, Pagin O, et al.Analysis of linear measurements on 3D surface models using CBCT data segmentation obtained by automatic standard pre-set thresholds in two segmentation software programs: an in vitro study[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2016, 20(1):179-185.

不同分割阈值重建锥形束CT数字化牙模型的精度研究

Accuracy of digital models reconstructed by cone-beam CT under different segmentation thresholds

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	李永清, 张赟, 惠铄壹, 惠小勇, 许广杰, 杨霞, 肖伯承, 侯锐. 3种不同材料三维模型牙临床应用特点比较[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2024, 22(3): 239-244.
[2]	戴小锋, 黄昕, 李成, 王辰昕, 施乐, 余优成. 2种CAD/CAM口腔数字化导板精度的比较[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2023, 21(1): 29-35.
[3]	王博, 于洪波, 夏韫晖, 房兵, 郭秋曼. 牙槽骨再生正畸技术治疗成人错畸形伴原发性牙槽骨缺损的远期疗效评价[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2022, 20(3): 225-229.
[4]	范永晶, 金武龙, 王淑敏, 王姝. 234颗多生牙临床特征及继发影响分析[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2022, 20(3): 257-262.
[5]	陈建荣, 丁水清, 陈亮, 何佳嘉, 祁荣兴. 颞下颌关节紊乱的影像学特征：锥形束CT和MRI效能比较[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2022, 20(3): 273-276.
[6]	盖云, 蒋芝月, 刘曙, 郑之峻. 青春期错畸形患者髁突位置与性别、颅面骨骼形态的相关性分析[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2022, 20(1): 42-47.
[7]	买买提·吐地, 哈尼克孜·莫明, 麦合布拜木·吐儿逊. 下颌颊棚区微螺钉解剖学植入区域位点锥形束CT测量分析[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2020, 18(1): 38-41.
[8]	李敬华, 姜文静, 王艳辉, 李晓静, 柏娜. 下颌前牙唇侧骨壁厚度及倾斜角度对即刻种植术前设计的影响[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2019, 17(3): 230-234.
[9]	高维青, 陈毅, 王晶波, 樊林峰, 赵怀萍, 陶晓峰, 奚岩, 朱凌. 能谱锥形束CT减少口腔金属伪影的效果评价[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2018, 16(6): 523-527.
[10]	张楚南, 倪杰, 莫嘉骥, 乔士冲, 王蓓, 顾迎新. 美学区种植同期应用异种骨行引导骨再生术后愈合期间唇侧骨改建的临床研究[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2018, 16(1): 29-33.
[11]	张馨匀, 李婵, 李洪发. 成人颞下颌关节骨关节病骨性改变与Helkimo指数的关系[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2018, 16(1): 64-68.
[12]	胡兆妮, 曲卫国, 李阳, 裘罡, 王吉, 岳柏. 骨性Ⅲ类错▉畸形患者双颌手术后软、硬组织的变化[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2017, 15(6): 524-528.
[13]	张楚南，莫嘉骥，乔士冲，倪杰，王蓓，顾迎新. 前牙美学区引导骨再生同期种植愈合期间边缘骨吸收的前瞻性研究[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2017, 15(5): 416-421.
[14]	杜世文, 俞创奇. 锥形束CT腮腺造影技术对腮腺非肿瘤性疾病的诊断价值[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2017, 15(4): 345-348.
[15]	曲哲, 胡艳君, 马岚, 张翔, 韩文利, 李振春. 下颌骨颏孔前区解剖结构的锥形束CT研究[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2017, 15(1): 11-15.