Comparison of Hand and Semiautomatic Tracing Methods for Creating Maxillofacial Artificial Organs using Sequences of Computed Tomography (CT) and Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Images
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2017
Comparison of Hand and Semiautomatic Tracing Methods for Creating Maxillofacial Artificial Organs using Sequences of Computed Tomography (CT) and Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Images
The aim of this study was to compare the paranasal sinus volumes obtained by manual and semiautomatic imaging software programs using both CT and CBCT imaging.
Methods
121 computed tomography (CT) and 119 cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) examinations were selected from the databases of the authors’ institutes. The Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) images were imported into 3-dimensonal imaging software, in which hand mode and semiautomatic tracing methods were used to measure the volumes of both maxillary sinuses and the sphenoid sinus. The determined volumetric means were compared to previously published averages.
Results
Isometric CBCT-based volume determination results were closer to the real volume conditions, whereas the non-isometric CT-based volume measurements defined coherently lower volumes. By comparing the 2 volume measurement modes, the values gained from hand mode were closer to the literature data. Furthermore, CBCT-based image measurement results corresponded to the known averages.
Conclusions
Our results suggest that CBCT images provide reliable volumetric information that can be depended on for artificial organ construction, and which may aid the guidance of the operator prior to or during the intervention.
SmithK.D., EdwardsP.C., SainiT.S., NortonN.S.. The prevalence of concha bullosa and nasal septal deviation and their relationship to maxillary sinusitis by volumetric tomography.Int J Dent.2010; 2010: 404982.
2.
EggesbøH.B.. Radiological imaging of inflammatory lesions in the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses.Eur Radiol.2006; 16(4): 872–888.
3.
KazmiK.S., ShamesJ.P.. Imaging of the paranasal sinuses.J Am Osteopath Coll Radiol.2015; 20(7): 27.
4.
RomanR.A., HedeşiuM., GersakM., FidanF., BăciutG., BăciutM.. Assessing the prevalence of paranasal sinuses anatomical variants in patients with sinusitis using Cone Beam Computer Tomography.Clujul Med.2016; 89(3): 423–429.
5.
BealeT.J., MadaniG., MorleyS.J.. Imaging of the paranasal sinuses and nasal cavity: normal anatomy and clinically relevant anatomical variants.Semin Ultrasound CT MR.2009; 30(1): 2–16.
6.
ErnoultC., BouletreauP., MeyerC., AubryS., BretonP., BacheletJ.T.. [Reconstruction assisted by 3D printing in maxillofacial surgery].Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac Chir Orale.2015; 116(2): 95–102.
7.
LiL., YangJ., ChuY.. A novel augmented reality navigation system for endoscopic sinus and skull base surgery: a feasibility study.PLoS One.2016; 11(1): e0146996.
8.
OrhanK., KocyigitD., TurkogluK., KartalY., ArslanA.. Illosis of maxillary sinus in immunocompromised patient.N Y State Dent J.2012; 78(1): 46–49.
9.
DammannF.. [Imaging of paranasal sinuses today].Radiologe.2007; 47(7): 576, 578–583 [Article in German].
10.
Al AbduwaniJ., ZilinSkieneL., ColleyS., AhmedS.. Cone beam CT paranasal sinuses versus standard multidetector and low dose multidetector CT studies.Am J Otolaryngol.2016; 37(1): 59–64.
11.
OrhanK., Kusakci SekerB., AksoyS., BayindirH., BerberoğluA., SekerE.. Cone beam CT evaluation of maxillary sinus septa prevalence, height, location and morphology in children and an adult population.Med Princ Pract.2013; 22(1): 47–53.
12.
StutzkiM., JahnsE., MandapathilM.M., DiogoI., WernerJ.A., GüldnerC.. Indications of cone beam CT in head and neck imaging.Acta Otolaryngol.2015; 135(12): 1337–1343.
MozzoP., ProcacciC., TacconiA., MartiniP.T., AndreisI.A.. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results.Eur Radiol.1998; 8(9): 1558–1564.
15.
BrownA.A., ScarfeW.C., ScheetzJ.P., SilveiraA.M., FarmanA.G.. Linear accuracy of cone beam CT derived 3D images.Angle Orthod.2009; 79(1): 150–157.
16.
OzU., OrhanK., AbeN.. Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo.Dentomaxillofac Radiol.2011; 40(8): 492–500.
17.
HwangS.H., SeoJ.H., JooY.H., KimB.G., ChoJ.H., KangJ.M.. An anatomic study using three-dimensional reconstruction for pterygopalatine fossa infiltration via the greater palatine canal.Clin Anat.2011; 24(5): 576–582.
18.
OrhanK., MisirliM., AksoyS.. Morphometric analysis of the infraorbital foramen, canal and groove using cone beam CT: considerations for creating artificial organs.Int J Artif Organs.2016; 39(1): 28–36.
19.
SzaboB.T., PatakyL., MikusiR., FejerdyP., Dobo-NagyC.. Comparative evaluation of cone-beam CT equipment with micro-CT in the visualization of root canal system.Ann Ist Super Sanita.2012; 48(1): 49–52.
20.
YilmazN., KoseE., DedeogluN., ColakC., OzbagD., DurakM.A.. Detailed anatomical analysis of the sphenoid sinus and sphenoid sinus ostium by cone-beam computed tomography.J Craniofac Surg.2016; 27(6): e549–e552.
RemuzziA.. Updating the journal sections for the evolution of research and clinical applications in artificial organs.Int J Artif Organs.2016; 39(6): 261–264.
23.
BrinerH.R., SimmenD., JonesN.. Evaluation of an anatomic model of the paranasal sinuses for endonasal surgical training.Rhinology.2007; 45(1): 20–23.
24.
AcarB., GunbeyE., BabademezM.A., KarabulutH., GunbeyH.P., KarasenR.M.. Utilization and dissection for endoscopic sinus surgery training in the residency program.J Craniofac Surg.2010; 21(6): 1715–1718.
25.
BraunT., BetzC.S., StelterK., LeunigA.. [FESS and surgical training: what are the problems?].Laryngo-Rhino-Otol.2011; 90(1): 10–14 [Article in German].
26.
WanibuchiM., OhtakiM., FukushimaT., FriedmanA.H., HoukinK.. Skull base training and education using an artificial skull model created by selective laser sintering.Acta Neurochir (Wien).2010; 152(6): 1055–1059, discussion 1059–1060.
27.
ChanH.H., SiewerdsenJ.H., VescanA., DalyM.J., PrismanE., IrishJ.C.. 3D rapid prototyping for otolaryngology - head and neck surgery: applications in image-guidance, surgical simulation and patient-specific modeling.PLoS One.2015; 10(9): e0136370.
28.
VarshneyR., FrenkielS., NguyenL.H.. National Research Council Canada. Development of the McGill simulator for endoscopic sinus surgery: a new high-fidelity virtual reality simulator for endoscopic sinus surgery.Am J Rhinol Allergy.2014; 28(4): 330–334.
29.
HosemannW., DrafC.. Danger points, complications and medico-legal aspects in endoscopic sinus surgery.GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2013; 12: Doc06.
30.
WeberR.K., HosemannW.. Comprehensive review on endonasal endoscopic sinus surgery.GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2015; 14: Doc08.
31.
WaranV., MenonR., PancharatnamD.. The creation and verification of cranial models using three-dimensional rapid prototyping technology in field of transnasal sphenoid endoscopy.Am J Rhinol Allergy.2012; 26(5): e132–e136.
32.
DixonB.J., DalyM.J., ChanH., VescanA., WitterickI.J., IrishJ.C.. Augmented image guidance improves skull base navigation and reduces task workload in trainees: a preclinical trial.Laryngoscope.2011; 121(10): 2060–2064.
33.
DixonB.J., ChanH., DalyM.J.. Three-dimensional virtual navigation versus conventional image guidance: A randomized controlled trial.Laryngoscope.2016; 126(7): 1510–1515.
34.
AksoyS., KelahmetU., HincalE., OzU., OrhanK.. Comparison of linear and angular measurements in CBCT scans using 2D and 3D rendering software.Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip.2016; 30(4): 777–784.
35.
SakulB.U., BilecenoğluB.. Baş ve Boynun Klinik BöIgesel Anatomisi.1st ed.Ankara: Özkan Matbaacılık.2009; 76, 106.
36.
SunZ., SmithT., KortamS., KimD.G., TeeB.C., FieldsH.. Effect of bone thickness on alveolar bone-height measurements from cone-beam computed tomography images.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2011; 139(2): e117–e127.
37.
PatcasR., MüllerL., UllrichO., PeltomäkiT.. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography at different resolutions assessed on the bony covering of the mandibular anterior teeth.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2012; 141(1): 41–50.
38.
TorresM.G., CamposP.S., SegundoN.P., NavarroM., Crusoé-RebelloI.. Accuracy of linear measurements in cone beam computed tomography with different voxel sizes.Implant Dent.2012; 21(2): 150–155.
39.
SherrardJ.F., RossouwP.E., BensonB.W., CarrilloR., BuschangP.H.. Accuracy and reliability of tooth and root lengths measured on cone-beam computed tomographs.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2010; 137(4)(Suppl): S100–S108.
40.
BallrickJ.W., PalomoJ.M., RuchE., AmbermanB.D., HansM.G.. Image distortion and spatial resolution of a commercially available cone-beam computed tomography machine.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2008; 134(4): 573–582.
41.
DamstraJ., FourieZ., Huddleston SlaterJ.J., RenY.. Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomography-derived surface models of different voxel sizes.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2010; 137(1): 16.e1–16.e6, discussion 16–17.
42.
PrabhatM., RaiS., KaurM., PrabhatK., BhatnagarP., PanjwaniS.. Computed tomography based forensic gender determination by measuring the size and volume of the maxillary sinuses.J Forensic Dent Sci.2016; 8(1): 40–46.
43.
OzA.Z., OzA.A., EIH., PalomoJ.M.. Maxillary sinus volume in patients with impacted canines.Angle Orthod.2017; 87(1): 25–32.
44.
TopH., AygitC., SarikayaA., KaramanD., FiratM.F.. Evaluation of maxillary sinus after treatment of midfacial fractures.J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2004; 62(10): 1229–1236.
45.
Cantini ArdilaJ.E., MendozaMá, OrtegaV.G.. Sphenoid sinus and sphenoid bone fractures in patients with craniomaxillofacial trauma.Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr.2013; 6(3): 179–186.
46.
Le FortR.. Etude expérimentale sur les fractures de la machoire supérieure. Parts I, II, III.Rev Chir De Paris.1901; 23: 208–507.
47.
KühnelT.S., ReichertT.E.. Trauma of the midface.GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2015; 14: Doc06.
48.
GentileM.A., TellingtonA.J., BurkeW.J., JaskolkaM.S.. Management of midface maxillofacial trauma.Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am.2013; 21(1): 69–95.
49.
YilmazS.Y., MisirliogluM., AdisenM.Z.. A Diagnosis of Maxillary Sinus Fracture with Cone-Beam CT: Case Report and Literature Review.Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr.2014; 7(2): 85–91.
50.
AhmadM., JennyJ., DownieM.. Application of cone beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery.Aust Dent J.2012; 57(Suppl 1): 82–94.
51.
ChoudharyA.B., MotwaniM.B., DegwekarS.S.. Utility of digital volume tomography in maxillofacial trauma.J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2011; 69(6): e135–e140.
52.
PohlenzP., BlessmannM., BlakeF., HeinrichS., SchmelzleR., HeilandM.. Clinical indications and perspectives for intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.2007; 103(3): 412–417.
53.
KokemuellerH., TavassolF., RückerM., GellrichN.C.. Complex midfacial reconstruction: a combined technique of computer-assisted surgery and microvascular tissue transfer.J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2008; 66(11): 2398–2406.
54.
ScolozziP., TerzicA.. Mirroring computational planning, navigation guidance system, and intraoperative mobile C-arm conebeam computed tomography with flat-panel detector: a new rationale in primary and secondary treatment of midfacial fractures?J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2011; 69(6): 1697–1707.
55.
KovacsM., FejérdyP., DobóN.C.. [Metal artefact on head and neck cone-beam CT images].Fogorv Sz.2008; 101(5): 171–178 [Article in Hungarian].
