Jablonski RY, Osnes CA, Khambay BS, Nattress BR, Keeling AJ. Accuracy of capturing oncology facial defects with multimodal image fusion versus laser scanning.
J Prosthet Dent 2019;
122:333-338. [PMID:
30955940 DOI:
10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.017]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/10/2018] [Revised: 10/03/2018] [Accepted: 10/03/2018] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Fabrication of conventional facial prostheses is a labor-intensive process which traditionally requires an impression of the facial defect and surrounding tissues. Inaccuracies occur during the facial moulage because of soft-tissue compression, the patient's reflex movements, or the lack of support for the impression material. A variety of 3D imaging techniques have been introduced during the production of facial prostheses. However, the accuracy of the different imaging techniques has not been evaluated sufficiently in this clinical context.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the difference in accuracy of capturing oncology facial defects with multimodal image fusion and laser scanning against a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) reference scan.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Ten gypsum casts of oncology facial defects were acquired. To produce reference models, a 3D volumetric scan was obtained using a CBCT scanner and converted into surface data using open-source medical segmentation software. This model was cropped to produce a CBCT mask using an open-source system for editing meshes. The multimodal image fusion model was created using stereophotogrammetry to capture the external facial features and a custom optical structured light scanner to record the defect. The gypsum casts were also scanned using a commercial 3D laser scanner to create the laser-scanned model. Analysis of the best fit of each experimental model to the CBCT mask was performed in MeshLab. The unsigned mean distance was used to measure the absolute deviation of each model from the CBCT mask. A paired-samples t test was conducted to compare the mean global deviation of the 2 imaging modalities from the CBCT masks (α=.05).
RESULTS
A statistically significant difference was found in the mean global deviation between the multimodal imaging model (220 ±50 μm) and the laser-scanned model (170 ±70 μm); (t(9)=2.56, P=.031). The color error maps illustrated that the greatest error was located at sites distant to the prosthesis margins.
CONCLUSIONS
The laser-scanned models were more accurate; however, the mean difference of 50 μm is unlikely to be clinically significant. The laser scanner had limited viewing angles and a longer scan time which may limit its transferability to maxillofacial practice.
Collapse