Using Superimposition of 3-Dimensional Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Images with Surface-Based Registration in Growing Patients

Objective: The purpose of this research was to evaluate a new method of superimposing detailed cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Materials and Methods: This study used 5 different software programs to transform the digital imaging and communication in medicine (DICOM) data from CBCT image into polygon data. The data conversion errors from different software programs were verified by the polyacetal ball test and the dry skull test. The iterative closest point (ICP) method was used for precise superimposition. To evaluate changes related to growth, three different domains were superimposed in order to investigate appropriate areas for evaluation by the ICP method. Results: The ICP method in the cranial base(excluding the peripheral zone) was indicated as the most reliable surface in this research. There were no measurement errors in converting the image data between software programs. Conclusion: The ICP method in the cranial base (excluding the peripheral zone) is one of the most accurate methods for superimposition when the mandibular rotation or displacement has not occurred during growth or treatment. This 3-dimesional(3D) superimposition technique can be used for a valid and reproducible assessment of treatment outcomes for growing subjects. This method is considered to be of clinical value because of the manageability and 3D accuracy of the data comparison with multi planar reconstruction (MPR) images.

Three-dimensional (3D) CBCT, superimposition, iterative closest point (ICP) method

1. Hatcher DC, Aboudara CL. Diagnosis goes digital. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 125: 512–515, 2004.

2. Mah J, Hatcher DC. Three-dimensional craniofacial imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 126: 308–309, 2004.

3. Harrell WE, Hatcher DC, Bolt RL. In search of anatomic truth (3-dimensional digital modeling and the future of orthodontics). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 122: 325–330, 2002.

4. Miller AJ, Maki K, Hatcher DC. New diagnostic tools in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 126: 395–396, 2004.

5. Chenin DL, Chenin DA, Chenin ST, Choi J. Dynamic cone-beam com-puted tomography in orthodontic treatment. J Clin Ortho, 43: 507–512, 2009.

6. Cevidances LHC, Heymann G, Cornelis MA, DeClerck HJ, Tulloch JFC. Superimposition of 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomogra-phy models of growing patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 136: 94–99, 2009.

7. Cevidances LHS, Styner MA, Proffit WR. Image analysis and super-imposition of 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 131: 759–766, 2006.

8. Baik HS, Jeon JM, Lee HJ. Facial soft-tissue analysis of Korean adults with normal occlusion using a 3-dimensional laser scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 131: 759–766, 2007.

9. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Poggio CE, Cova M, Tartaglia M. Preliminary evaluation of an electromagnetic three-dimensional digitizer in facial anthropometry. Cleft Palate Craniofac J, 35: 9–15, 1997.

10. Besl PJ, McKay ND. A method for registration of 3-dimensional shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, 14: 239–256, 1992.

11. Declerck J, Feldmar J, Goris ML. Automatic registration and alignment on a template of cardiac stress and rest reoriented SPECT images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 16: 727–737, 1997.

12. Arun KS, Huang TS, Blostein SD. Least-squares fitting of two 3-dimensional point sets. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, 9: 698–700, 1987.

13. Horn BKP. Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using unit quaternions. J Opt Soc Am, 44: 629–642, 1987.

14. Scott JH. The cranial base. Am J Phys Anthropol, 16: 319–348, 1958.

15. Nie X. Cranial base in craniofacial development: developmental fea-tures, influence on facial growth, anomaly, and molecular basis. Acta Odontol Scand, 63: 127–135, 2005.

16. Gh 7afari J, Engel FE, Laster LL. Cephalometric superimposition on the cranial base: a review and a comparison of four methods. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 91: 403–413, 1987.

17. Kataoka Y, Nakano H, Matsuda Y, Araki K, Okano T, Maki K. Three dimensional diagnostic imaging of the alveolar bone using dento-max-illofacial cone beam X-ray CT. Orthod Waves-Jap Ed, 66: 81–91, 2007.

18. Dan G, Cevidances LSH, Proffit WR. Working with DICOM craniofa-cial images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 136: 460–470, 2009.

19. Terajima M, Furuichi Y, Aoki Y, Goto TK, Tokumori K, Nakasima A. A 3- dimensional method for analyzing facial soft-tissue morphology of patients with jaw deformities. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 135: 715–722, 2009.

20. Kocadereli I, Telli AE. Evaluation of Ricketts’ long-range growth pre-diction in Turkish children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 115: 515–520, 1999.

21. Springate SD, Jones AG. The validity of two methods of mandibular superimposition: A comparison with tantalum implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 113: 263–270, 1998.

22. Ricketts RM. New perspective on orientation and their benefits to clin-ical orthodontics—part II. Am J Orthod, 46: 26–36, 1976.

23. Ricketts RM. A principle of racial growth of the mandible. Am J Orthod, 42: 368–386, 1972.

24. Pfuger T, Vollmar C, Wismuller A. Quantitative comparison of auto-matic and interactive methods for MRI-SPECT image registration of the brain based on 3-dimensional calculation of error. J Nucl Med, 41: 1823–1829, 2000.