成像程序和分割方法对牙齿体积测量准确性的影响

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-11 DOI:10.1016/j.oooo.2024.07.001
Merve Aydogdu DDS, Mehmet Zahit Adisen DDS, PhD, Gülsah Ertas DDS
{"title":"成像程序和分割方法对牙齿体积测量准确性的影响","authors":"Merve Aydogdu DDS,&nbsp;Mehmet Zahit Adisen DDS, PhD,&nbsp;Gülsah Ertas DDS","doi":"10.1016/j.oooo.2024.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study investigated whether there are differences between software programs, voxel sizes, segmentation techniques, and intraoral scanners in terms of volume measurement in incisor teeth.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><div>Thirty extracted teeth were scanned using a 3D intraoral scanner. Physical volumes were measured using the water displacement method (WDM) as the gold standard. Cone beam computed tomography images were taken at two voxel sizes (0.3-0.4 mm voxel). The volumes of the teeth were calculated using the manual segmentation technique in the 3D Doctor and ImageJ (Fiji) Program, manual and automatic segmentation methods in the ITK-Snap program, and automatic segmentation methods in the 3D Slicer program. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, v 20.0).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There is a significant difference between WDM and 3D Doctor volume measurements at the voxel size of 0.4 mm (<em>P</em> &lt; .05). The 3D Doctor program showed more than 13% difference compared to the WDM. There is no significant difference between WDM, intraoral scanner, ITK-Snap, ImageJ (Fiji), 3D Slicer, and 3D-Doctor volume measurements at the voxel size of 0.3 mm.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Measurements with manual segmentation in ITK-Snap and ImageJ programs give the closest results to the physical volume measurements of the teeth. The automatic segmentation method in ITK-Snap and 3D Slicer programs may be preferred due to its ease of use and less time-consuming. In the 3D Doctor software, volume measurements tend to increase with larger voxel size.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49010,"journal":{"name":"Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology","volume":"138 6","pages":"Pages 794-802"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of imaging programs and segmentation methods on the accuracy of volume measurements of teeth\",\"authors\":\"Merve Aydogdu DDS,&nbsp;Mehmet Zahit Adisen DDS, PhD,&nbsp;Gülsah Ertas DDS\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.oooo.2024.07.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study investigated whether there are differences between software programs, voxel sizes, segmentation techniques, and intraoral scanners in terms of volume measurement in incisor teeth.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><div>Thirty extracted teeth were scanned using a 3D intraoral scanner. Physical volumes were measured using the water displacement method (WDM) as the gold standard. Cone beam computed tomography images were taken at two voxel sizes (0.3-0.4 mm voxel). The volumes of the teeth were calculated using the manual segmentation technique in the 3D Doctor and ImageJ (Fiji) Program, manual and automatic segmentation methods in the ITK-Snap program, and automatic segmentation methods in the 3D Slicer program. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, v 20.0).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There is a significant difference between WDM and 3D Doctor volume measurements at the voxel size of 0.4 mm (<em>P</em> &lt; .05). The 3D Doctor program showed more than 13% difference compared to the WDM. There is no significant difference between WDM, intraoral scanner, ITK-Snap, ImageJ (Fiji), 3D Slicer, and 3D-Doctor volume measurements at the voxel size of 0.3 mm.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Measurements with manual segmentation in ITK-Snap and ImageJ programs give the closest results to the physical volume measurements of the teeth. The automatic segmentation method in ITK-Snap and 3D Slicer programs may be preferred due to its ease of use and less time-consuming. In the 3D Doctor software, volume measurements tend to increase with larger voxel size.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49010,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology\",\"volume\":\"138 6\",\"pages\":\"Pages 794-802\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212440324003730\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212440324003730","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计使用三维口内扫描仪扫描了 30 颗拔牙。使用水位移法(WDM)作为黄金标准测量物理体积。锥形束计算机断层扫描图像采用两种体素尺寸(0.3-0.4 毫米体素)。使用 3D Doctor 和 ImageJ (Fiji) 程序中的手动分割技术、ITK-Snap 程序中的手动和自动分割方法以及 3D Slicer 程序中的自动分割方法计算牙齿体积。使用社会科学统计软件包(SPSS,v 20.0)对数据进行了分析。结果在体素大小为 0.4 毫米时,WDM 和 3D Doctor 的体积测量结果存在显著差异(P <.05)。与 WDM 相比,3D Doctor 程序显示出超过 13% 的差异。在 0.3 毫米体素尺寸下,WDM、口内扫描仪、ITK-Snap、ImageJ (Fiji)、3D Slicer 和 3D-Doctor 的体积测量结果没有明显差异。ITK-Snap 和 3D Slicer 程序中的自动分割方法因其易于使用和耗时较少而更受欢迎。在 3D Doctor 软件中,体积测量值往往随着体素尺寸的增大而增大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The effect of imaging programs and segmentation methods on the accuracy of volume measurements of teeth

Objective

This study investigated whether there are differences between software programs, voxel sizes, segmentation techniques, and intraoral scanners in terms of volume measurement in incisor teeth.

Study Design

Thirty extracted teeth were scanned using a 3D intraoral scanner. Physical volumes were measured using the water displacement method (WDM) as the gold standard. Cone beam computed tomography images were taken at two voxel sizes (0.3-0.4 mm voxel). The volumes of the teeth were calculated using the manual segmentation technique in the 3D Doctor and ImageJ (Fiji) Program, manual and automatic segmentation methods in the ITK-Snap program, and automatic segmentation methods in the 3D Slicer program. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, v 20.0).

Results

There is a significant difference between WDM and 3D Doctor volume measurements at the voxel size of 0.4 mm (P < .05). The 3D Doctor program showed more than 13% difference compared to the WDM. There is no significant difference between WDM, intraoral scanner, ITK-Snap, ImageJ (Fiji), 3D Slicer, and 3D-Doctor volume measurements at the voxel size of 0.3 mm.

Conclusions

Measurements with manual segmentation in ITK-Snap and ImageJ programs give the closest results to the physical volume measurements of the teeth. The automatic segmentation method in ITK-Snap and 3D Slicer programs may be preferred due to its ease of use and less time-consuming. In the 3D Doctor software, volume measurements tend to increase with larger voxel size.
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
Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology
Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
6.90%
发文量
1217
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology is required reading for anyone in the fields of oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology or advanced general practice dentistry. It is the only major dental journal that provides a practical and complete overview of the medical and surgical techniques of dental practice in four areas. Topics covered include such current issues as dental implants, treatment of HIV-infected patients, and evaluation and treatment of TMJ disorders. The official publication for nine societies, the Journal is recommended for initial purchase in the Brandon Hill study, Selected List of Books and Journals for the Small Medical Library.
期刊最新文献
Minimally invasive transcrestal sinus floor elevation: a 10-year cohort study Contemporary strategies for active learning in oral and maxillofacial surgery education Effectiveness of computer-guided versus conventional arthrocentesis in the management of temporomandibular joint disorders: a systematic review of clinical studies Evaluation of bone repair using sticky bone in preradiotherapy extraction sockets of head and neck cancer patients: a pre- and postradiotherapy follow-up Treatment planning software to protect dental structure, salivary glands, and nontarget tissue in head and neck cancer patients: a scoping review
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1