Comparison of the Accuracy of Voxel Based Registration and Surface Based Registration for 3D Assessment of Surgical Change following Orthognathic Surgery
Purpose Superimposition of two dimensional preoperative and postoperative facial images, including radiographs and photographs, are used to evaluate the surgical changes after orthognathic surgery. Recently, three dimensional (3D) imaging has been introduced allowing more accurate analysis of surgical changes. Surface based registration and voxel based registration are commonly used methods for 3D superimposition. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of the two methods. Materials and methods Pre-operative and 6 months post-operative cone beam CT scan (CBCT) images of 31 patients were randomly selected from the orthognathic patient database at the Dental Hospital and School, University of Glasgow, UK. Voxel based registration was performed on the DICOM images (Digital Imaging Communication in Medicine) using Maxilim software (Medicim-Medical Image Computing, Belgium). Surface based registration was performed on the soft and hard tissue 3D models using VRMesh (VirtualGrid, Bellevue City, WA). The accuracy of the superimposition was evaluated by measuring the mean value of the absolute distance between the two 3D image surfaces. The results were statistically analysed using a paired Student t-test, ANOVA with post-hoc Duncan test, a one sample t-test and Pearson correlation coefficient test. Results The results showed no significant statistical difference between the two superimposition methods (p<0.05). However surface based registration showed a high variability in the mean distances between the corresponding surfaces compared to voxel based registration, especially for soft tissue. Within each method there was a significant difference between superimposition of the soft and hard tissue models. Conclusions There were no significant statistical differences between the two registration methods and it was unlikely to have any clinical significance. Voxel based registration was associated with less variability. Registering on the soft tissue in isolation from the hard tissue may not be a true reflection of the surgical change.
References
[1]
Baumrind S, Miller D, Molthen R (1976) The reliability of head film measurements. Am J Orthod 70: 617–644. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(76)90224-4
[2]
Chow J, H？gg U, Tideman H (1995) The stability of segmentalized Le Fort I osteotomies with miniplate fixation in patients with maxillary hypoplasia. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53: 1407–1412. doi: 10.1016/0278-2391(95)90665-7
[3]
Kim Y-K, Kim Y-J, Yun P-Y, Kim J-W (2009) Evaluation of skeletal and surgical factors related to relapse of mandibular setback surgery using the bioabsorbable plate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 37: 63–68. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2008.10.011
[4]
Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB (2006) Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 35: 219–226. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/14340323
[5]
Scarfe WC, Farman AG (2006) Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 72: 75–80.
[6]
Hajeer MY, Ayoub AF, Millett DT (2004) Three-dimensional assessment of facial soft-tissue asymmetry before and after orthognathic surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42: 396–404. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2004.05.006
[7]
Ubaya T, Sherriff A, Ayoub A, Khambay B (2012) Soft tissue morphology of the naso-maxillary complex following surgical correction of maxillary hypoplasia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41: 727–732. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.01.019
[8]
MacDonald-Jankowski D, Orpe EC (2006) Computed Tomography for oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Part 2: Cone-beam Computed Tomography. Asian J Oral Maxillofac Surg 18: 85–92. doi: 10.1016/s0915-6992(06)80001-4
[9]
Lorensen WE, Cline HE (1987) Marching cubes: A high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. ACM Computer Graphics 21: 163–169. doi: 10.1145/37402.37422
[10]
Hajeer MY, Ayoub AF, Millett DT (2004) Three-dimensional assessment of facial soft-tissue asymmetry before and after orthognathic surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42: 396–404. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2004.05.006
[11]
Baik HS, Kim SY (2010) Facial soft-tissue changes in skeletal Class III orthognathic surgery patients analyzed with 3-dimensional laser scanning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 138: 167–178. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.02.022
[12]
Kim BR, Oh KM, Cevidanes LHS, Park JE, Sim HS, et al. (2013) Analysis of 3D soft tissue changes after 1- and 2-jaw orthognathic surgery in mandibular prognathism patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71: 151–161. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.02.005
[13]
Maal TJJ, de Koning MJJ, Plooij JM, Verhamme LM, Rangel Fa, et al. (2012) One year postoperative hard and soft tissue volumetric changes after a BSSO mandibular advancement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41: 1137–1145. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.04.004
[14]
Park SB, Yoon JK, Kim YI, Hwang DS, Cho BH, et al. (2012) The evaluation of the nasal morphologic changes after bimaxillary surgery in skeletal class III maloccusion by using the superimposition of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) volumes. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 40: e87–e92. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2011.05.008
[15]
Slomka PJ, Mandel J, Downey D, Fenster A (2001) Evaluation of voxel-based registration of 3-D power doppler ultrasound and 3-D magnetic resonance angiographic images of carotid arteries. Ultrasound Med Biol 27: 945–955. doi: 10.1016/s0301-5629(01)00387-8
[16]
Maes F, Collignon A, Vandermeulen D, Marchal G, Suetens P (1997) Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans Med imaging 16: 285–298. doi: 10.1109/42.563664
[17]
Nada RM, Maal TJJ, Breuning KH, Bergé SJ, Mostafa Y, et al. (2011) Accuracy and reproducibility of voxel based superimposition of cone beam computed tomography models on the anterior cranial base and the zygomatic arches. PloS One 6: e16520. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016520
[18]
Lee JH, Kim MJ, Kim SM, Kwon OH, Kim YK (2012) The 3D CT superimposition method using image fusion based on the maximum mutual information algorithm for the assessment of oral and maxillofacial surgery treatment results. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral pathol Oral radiol 114: 167–174. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.06.003
[19]
Bell A, Ayoub AF, Siebert P (2003) Assessment of the accuracy of a three-dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models. J Orthod 30: 219–223. doi: 10.1093/ortho/30.3.219
[20]
Molteni R (2013) Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral pathol Oral radiol 116: 105–119. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2013.04.013
