Matching accuracy between CT images and intraoral surface scans using glass-ceramic markers compared to gutta-percha markers.

IF 4.7 3区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Yoshiyuki Nakano, Takuya Mino, Yoko Kurosaki, Hiroaki Shimizu, Mariko Nishizaki, Kenji Maekawa
{"title":"Matching accuracy between CT images and intraoral surface scans using glass-ceramic markers compared to gutta-percha markers.","authors":"Yoshiyuki Nakano, Takuya Mino, Yoko Kurosaki, Hiroaki Shimizu, Mariko Nishizaki, Kenji Maekawa","doi":"10.1186/s40729-026-00672-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study investigated the accuracy of matching computed tomography (CT) images and intraoral surface scans using glass-ceramic (GC) and conventional gutta-percha (GP) markers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mandibular master model of the right posterior edentulous region (teeth 45-47) was prepared with three training implants, each with a scan body fixed at the anterior central, left posterior, and right posterior sites. The model was scanned 10 times using an intraoral scanner, and 10 CT matching templates with six GP markers (GPCTMTs) and 10 with six GC markers (GCCTMTs) were fabricated. Each template was mounted on the model for CT imaging and intraoral scanning under air conditions. CT imaging was also performed with the model immersed in water to simulate intraoral scattering. A dentist blinded to the study purpose used implant simulation software for matching, which was performed with GP with six markers (GPCTMT) and GC with three (GCCTMT-3) or six (GCCTMT-6) markers. The three-dimensional discrepancy (matching error) between the implant apex positions on CT images and corresponding positions from surface data was measured automatically, and the median of the three sites served as the representative value. Group comparisons were performed using the Steel-Dwass test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Under both air and water conditions, GCCTMT-3 (air: 0.61, water: 0.65) and GCCTMT-6 (air: 0.58, water: 0.57) demonstrated significantly lower matching errors (mm) than those in GPCTMT (air: 1.98, water: 1.83).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This model-based study suggests that GC markers provide greater matching accuracy than GP markers for CT-surface data integration.</p>","PeriodicalId":14076,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Implant Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13031439/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Implant Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-026-00672-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigated the accuracy of matching computed tomography (CT) images and intraoral surface scans using glass-ceramic (GC) and conventional gutta-percha (GP) markers.

Methods: A mandibular master model of the right posterior edentulous region (teeth 45-47) was prepared with three training implants, each with a scan body fixed at the anterior central, left posterior, and right posterior sites. The model was scanned 10 times using an intraoral scanner, and 10 CT matching templates with six GP markers (GPCTMTs) and 10 with six GC markers (GCCTMTs) were fabricated. Each template was mounted on the model for CT imaging and intraoral scanning under air conditions. CT imaging was also performed with the model immersed in water to simulate intraoral scattering. A dentist blinded to the study purpose used implant simulation software for matching, which was performed with GP with six markers (GPCTMT) and GC with three (GCCTMT-3) or six (GCCTMT-6) markers. The three-dimensional discrepancy (matching error) between the implant apex positions on CT images and corresponding positions from surface data was measured automatically, and the median of the three sites served as the representative value. Group comparisons were performed using the Steel-Dwass test.

Results: Under both air and water conditions, GCCTMT-3 (air: 0.61, water: 0.65) and GCCTMT-6 (air: 0.58, water: 0.57) demonstrated significantly lower matching errors (mm) than those in GPCTMT (air: 1.98, water: 1.83).

Conclusions: This model-based study suggests that GC markers provide greater matching accuracy than GP markers for CT-surface data integration.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

使用玻璃陶瓷标记与杜仲胶标记比较CT图像与口内表面扫描的匹配精度。
目的:本研究探讨了玻璃陶瓷(GC)和常规杜胶(GP)标记物在计算机断层扫描(CT)图像与口内表面扫描匹配的准确性。方法:采用3个训练种植体分别在前中央、左后、右后三个位置固定扫描体,制备右侧后无牙区(牙45-47)下颌主模型。使用口腔内扫描仪对模型进行10次扫描,制作10个具有6个GP标记物(GPCTMTs)和10个具有6个GC标记物(GCCTMTs)的CT匹配模板。每个模板安装在模型上,在空气条件下进行CT成像和口内扫描。将模型浸入水中进行CT成像,模拟口腔内散射。对研究目的不知情的牙科医生使用种植体模拟软件进行匹配,GP与GPCTMT分别使用6个标记物(GPCTMT)和GC分别使用3个标记物(GCCTMT-3)和6个标记物(GCCTMT-6)进行匹配。自动测量CT图像上种植体顶点位置与表面数据对应位置的三维差异(匹配误差),以三个位置的中位数作为代表性值。采用Steel-Dwass检验进行组间比较。结果:在空气和水条件下,GCCTMT-3(空气:0.61,水:0.65)和GCCTMT-6(空气:0.58,水:0.57)的匹配误差(mm)均显著低于GPCTMT(空气:1.98,水:1.83)。结论:这项基于模型的研究表明,GC标记物比GP标记物在ct表面数据整合方面具有更高的匹配准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Implant Dentistry
International Journal of Implant Dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
7.40%
发文量
53
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Implant Dentistry is a peer-reviewed open access journal published under the SpringerOpen brand. The journal is dedicated to promoting the exchange and discussion of all research areas relevant to implant dentistry in the form of systematic literature or invited reviews, prospective and retrospective clinical studies, clinical case reports, basic laboratory and animal research, and articles on material research and engineering.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书