三维分析重建的头骨使用三种不同的开源软件和商业软件。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Johari Yap Abdullah, Abdul Manaf Abdullah, Syafawati Zaim, Helmi Hadi, Adam Husein, Zainul Ahmad Rajion, Jafri Malin Abdullah
{"title":"三维分析重建的头骨使用三种不同的开源软件和商业软件。","authors":"Johari Yap Abdullah, Abdul Manaf Abdullah, Syafawati Zaim, Helmi Hadi, Adam Husein, Zainul Ahmad Rajion, Jafri Malin Abdullah","doi":"10.1177/09544119231212034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to compare the 3D skull models reconstructed from computed tomography (CT) images using three different open-source software with a commercial software as a reference. The commercial Mimics v17.0 software was used to reconstruct the 3D skull models from 58 subjects. Next, two open-source software, MITK Workbench 2016.11, 3D Slicer 4.8.1 and InVesalius 3.1 were used to reconstruct the 3D skull models from the same subjects. All four software went through similar steps in 3D reconstruction process. The 3D skull models from the commercial and open-source software were exported in standard tessellation language (STL) format into CloudCompare v2.8 software and superimposed for geometric analyses. Hausdorff distance (HD) analysis demonstrated the average points distance of Mimics versus MITK was 0.25 mm. Meanwhile, for Mimics versus 3D Slicer and Mimics versus InVesalius, there was almost no differences between the two superimposed 3D skull models with average points distance of 0.01 mm. Based on Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) analysis, the similarity between Mimics versus MITK, Mimics versus 3D Slicer and Mimics versus InVesalius were 94.1, 98.8 and 98.3%, respectively. In conclusion, this study confirmed that the alternative open-source software, MITK, 3D Slicer and InVesalius gave comparable results in 3D reconstruction of skull models compared to the commercial gold standard Mimics software. This open-source software could possibly be used for pre-operative planning in cranio-maxillofacial cases and for patient management in the hospitals or institutions with limited budget.</p>","PeriodicalId":20666,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"55-62"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Three-dimensional analysis of reconstructed skulls using three different open-source software versus commercial software.\",\"authors\":\"Johari Yap Abdullah, Abdul Manaf Abdullah, Syafawati Zaim, Helmi Hadi, Adam Husein, Zainul Ahmad Rajion, Jafri Malin Abdullah\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09544119231212034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to compare the 3D skull models reconstructed from computed tomography (CT) images using three different open-source software with a commercial software as a reference. The commercial Mimics v17.0 software was used to reconstruct the 3D skull models from 58 subjects. Next, two open-source software, MITK Workbench 2016.11, 3D Slicer 4.8.1 and InVesalius 3.1 were used to reconstruct the 3D skull models from the same subjects. All four software went through similar steps in 3D reconstruction process. The 3D skull models from the commercial and open-source software were exported in standard tessellation language (STL) format into CloudCompare v2.8 software and superimposed for geometric analyses. Hausdorff distance (HD) analysis demonstrated the average points distance of Mimics versus MITK was 0.25 mm. Meanwhile, for Mimics versus 3D Slicer and Mimics versus InVesalius, there was almost no differences between the two superimposed 3D skull models with average points distance of 0.01 mm. Based on Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) analysis, the similarity between Mimics versus MITK, Mimics versus 3D Slicer and Mimics versus InVesalius were 94.1, 98.8 and 98.3%, respectively. In conclusion, this study confirmed that the alternative open-source software, MITK, 3D Slicer and InVesalius gave comparable results in 3D reconstruction of skull models compared to the commercial gold standard Mimics software. This open-source software could possibly be used for pre-operative planning in cranio-maxillofacial cases and for patient management in the hospitals or institutions with limited budget.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20666,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"55-62\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09544119231212034\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09544119231212034","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在比较使用三种不同的开源软件和商业软件作为参考的计算机断层扫描(CT)图像重建的三维颅骨模型。使用商用Mimics v17.0软件重建58名受试者的三维颅骨模型。接下来,使用两个开源软件MITK Workbench 2016.11, 3D Slicer 4.8.1和InVesalius 3.1重建同一受试者的三维颅骨模型。这四个软件在三维重建过程中都经历了相似的步骤。来自商业和开源软件的3D头骨模型以标准镶嵌语言(STL)格式导出到CloudCompare v2.8软件中,并叠加进行几何分析。Hausdorff距离(HD)分析显示Mimics与MITK的平均点距为0.25 mm。同时,对于Mimics vs 3D Slicer和Mimics vs InVesalius,两种叠加的3D颅骨模型几乎没有差异,平均点距为0.01 mm。根据Dice相似系数(DSC)分析,Mimics与MITK、Mimics与3D Slicer、Mimics与InVesalius的相似度分别为94.1、98.8和98.3%。综上所述,本研究证实了MITK、3D Slicer和InVesalius等替代开源软件与商业黄金标准Mimics软件相比,在颅骨模型的3D重建方面给出了相当的结果。该开源软件可用于颅颌面手术的术前规划和预算有限的医院或机构的患者管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Three-dimensional analysis of reconstructed skulls using three different open-source software versus commercial software.

This study aimed to compare the 3D skull models reconstructed from computed tomography (CT) images using three different open-source software with a commercial software as a reference. The commercial Mimics v17.0 software was used to reconstruct the 3D skull models from 58 subjects. Next, two open-source software, MITK Workbench 2016.11, 3D Slicer 4.8.1 and InVesalius 3.1 were used to reconstruct the 3D skull models from the same subjects. All four software went through similar steps in 3D reconstruction process. The 3D skull models from the commercial and open-source software were exported in standard tessellation language (STL) format into CloudCompare v2.8 software and superimposed for geometric analyses. Hausdorff distance (HD) analysis demonstrated the average points distance of Mimics versus MITK was 0.25 mm. Meanwhile, for Mimics versus 3D Slicer and Mimics versus InVesalius, there was almost no differences between the two superimposed 3D skull models with average points distance of 0.01 mm. Based on Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) analysis, the similarity between Mimics versus MITK, Mimics versus 3D Slicer and Mimics versus InVesalius were 94.1, 98.8 and 98.3%, respectively. In conclusion, this study confirmed that the alternative open-source software, MITK, 3D Slicer and InVesalius gave comparable results in 3D reconstruction of skull models compared to the commercial gold standard Mimics software. This open-source software could possibly be used for pre-operative planning in cranio-maxillofacial cases and for patient management in the hospitals or institutions with limited budget.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
122
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Engineering in Medicine is an interdisciplinary journal encompassing all aspects of engineering in medicine. The Journal is a vital tool for maintaining an understanding of the newest techniques and research in medical 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信