Influence of Scanner Precision and Analysis Software in Quantifying Three-Dimensional Intraoral Changes: Two-Factor Factorial Experimental Design.
diagnostic systems
digital imaging/radiology
engineering
imaging
outcomes research
tooth wear
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 11 2020
27 11 2020
Historique:
received:
27
11
2019
accepted:
27
07
2020
revised:
22
06
2020
entrez:
27
11
2020
pubmed:
28
11
2020
medline:
2
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Three-dimensional scans are increasingly used to quantify biological topographical changes and clinical health outcomes. Traditionally, the use of 3D scans has been limited to specialized centers owing to the high cost of the scanning equipment and the necessity for complex analysis software. Technological advances have made cheaper, more accessible methods of data capture and analysis available in the field of dentistry, potentially facilitating a primary care system to quantify disease progression. However, this system has yet to be compared with previous high-precision methods in university hospital settings. The aim of this study was to compare a dental primary care method of data capture (intraoral scanner) with a precision hospital-based method (laser profilometer) in addition to comparing open source and commercial software available for data analysis. Longitudinal dental wear data from 30 patients were analyzed using a two-factor factorial experimental design. Bimaxillary intraoral digital scans (TrueDefinition, 3M, UK) and conventional silicone impressions, poured in type-4 dental stone, were made at both baseline and follow-up appointments (mean 36 months, SD 10.9). Stone models were scanned using precision laser profilometry (Taicaan, Southampton, UK). Three-dimensional changes in both forms of digital scans of the first molars (n=76) were quantitatively analyzed using the engineering software Geomagic Control (3D Systems, Germany) and freeware WearCompare (Leeds Digital Dentistry, UK). Volume change (mm The median (IQR) volume change for Geomagic using profilometry and using the intraoral scan was -0.37 mm As expected, the method of data capture, software used, and measurement metric all significantly influenced the measurement outcome. However, when appropriate analysis was used, the primary care system was able to quantify the degree of change and can be recommended depending on the accuracy needed to diagnose a condition. Lower-resolution scanners may underestimate complex changes when measuring at the micron level.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Three-dimensional scans are increasingly used to quantify biological topographical changes and clinical health outcomes. Traditionally, the use of 3D scans has been limited to specialized centers owing to the high cost of the scanning equipment and the necessity for complex analysis software. Technological advances have made cheaper, more accessible methods of data capture and analysis available in the field of dentistry, potentially facilitating a primary care system to quantify disease progression. However, this system has yet to be compared with previous high-precision methods in university hospital settings.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to compare a dental primary care method of data capture (intraoral scanner) with a precision hospital-based method (laser profilometer) in addition to comparing open source and commercial software available for data analysis.
METHODS
Longitudinal dental wear data from 30 patients were analyzed using a two-factor factorial experimental design. Bimaxillary intraoral digital scans (TrueDefinition, 3M, UK) and conventional silicone impressions, poured in type-4 dental stone, were made at both baseline and follow-up appointments (mean 36 months, SD 10.9). Stone models were scanned using precision laser profilometry (Taicaan, Southampton, UK). Three-dimensional changes in both forms of digital scans of the first molars (n=76) were quantitatively analyzed using the engineering software Geomagic Control (3D Systems, Germany) and freeware WearCompare (Leeds Digital Dentistry, UK). Volume change (mm
RESULTS
The median (IQR) volume change for Geomagic using profilometry and using the intraoral scan was -0.37 mm
CONCLUSIONS
As expected, the method of data capture, software used, and measurement metric all significantly influenced the measurement outcome. However, when appropriate analysis was used, the primary care system was able to quantify the degree of change and can be recommended depending on the accuracy needed to diagnose a condition. Lower-resolution scanners may underestimate complex changes when measuring at the micron level.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33245280
pii: v22i11e17150
doi: 10.2196/17150
pmc: PMC7732705
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e17150Informations de copyright
©Saoirse O'Toole, David Bartlett, Andrew Keeling, John McBride, Eduardo Bernabe, Luuk Crins, Bas Loomans. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 27.11.2020.
Références
BMC Oral Health. 2018 Feb 23;18(1):27
pubmed: 29471825
J Dent. 2017 Apr;59:33-40
pubmed: 28189718
J Dent. 2020 Jun;97:103342
pubmed: 32360512
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Sep;22(7):2567-2573
pubmed: 29397468
Br Dent J. 2018 Mar 9;224(5):348-356
pubmed: 29495023
Dent Mater. 2010 Oct;26(10):e221-5
pubmed: 20701961
Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Sep;20(7):1487-94
pubmed: 26454734
Sci Rep. 2018 May 23;8(1):8024
pubmed: 29795123
Dent Mater. 2012 Mar;28(3):245-51
pubmed: 22094292
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2003 Jul;41(4):464-9
pubmed: 12892370
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Jul-Aug;29(4):853-62
pubmed: 25032765
Dent Mater. 2011 Mar;27(3):253-8
pubmed: 21075442
Br Dent J. 2018 Mar 9;224(5):364-370
pubmed: 29495027
J Oral Rehabil. 2002 Jun;29(6):540-5
pubmed: 12071922
Dent Mater. 2019 Oct;35(10):1408-1414
pubmed: 31402133
J Dent. 2019 Sep;88:103164
pubmed: 31276748
Biomed Res Int. 2019 Aug 6;2019:6092018
pubmed: 31467901
Caries Res. 2012;46(1):9-15
pubmed: 22156738
J Oral Rehabil. 1998 Dec;25(12):921-8
pubmed: 9888227
J Prosthodont. 2017 Oct;26(7):581-586
pubmed: 26855068
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2004 Jan;42(1):100-5
pubmed: 14977229
Dent Mater. 2019 Mar;35(3):495-500
pubmed: 30683418
J Prosthet Dent. 1997 Mar;77(3):313-20
pubmed: 9069087