Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of manual control point selection accuracy on automated surface matching of digital dental models

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Treatment outcomes are frequently evaluated based on the superimposition of digital dental models. However, errors from surface matching may distort these findings. The aims of this study were (i) to develop a simulation unit to mimic point set registrations and (ii) to evaluate the impact and clinical relevance of manual landmark selection errors on registration accuracy.

Material and methods

Ten randomly selected dental casts were digitized using a 3D laser scanner, and were loaded by an in-house developed simulation unit (MATLAB R2014a). First, the models were digitally duplicated and one surface was rotated and translated at random. Landmark-based registration was performed with 3 to 15 landmarks, and Gaussian noise was increased iteratively from 0 to 2 mm which simulated CP selection inaccuracy. Iterative closest point (ICP) matching was performed with and without addition of Gaussian noise. Finally, root-mean-squared (RMS) errors and Hausdorff distances were calculated, and averaged for each matching algorithm and noise level.

Results

Selection of 10 control points provided reliable registration even in the presence of noise. ICP improved registration results, but noise above 0.5 mm clearly worsened the outcomes.

Conclusion

Reliable superimposition of digital dental models is possible if 10 carefully selected control points with deviation below 0.5 mm are used for initial landmark-based registration.

Clinical relevance

Potential registration errors should be considered carefully whenever superimposed digital dental models are interpreted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clements LW et al (2008) Robust surface registration using salient anatomical features for image-guided liver surgery: algorithm and validation. Med Phys 35(6):2528–2540

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Toth R, Sperling D, Madabhushi A (2016) Quantifying post-laser ablation prostate therapy changes on MRI via a domain-specific biomechanical model: preliminary findings. PLoS One 11(4):e0150016

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Besl PJ, McKay HD (1992) A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 14(2):239–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gruen A, Akca D (2005) Least squares 3D surface and curve matching. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 59(3):151–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Al-Saleh MA et al (2016) MRI and CBCT image registration of temporomandibular joint: a systematic review. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 45(1):30

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Koerich L et al (2016) Three-dimensional maxillary and mandibular regional superimposition using cone beam computed tomography: a validation study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45(5):662–669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Seo YJ et al (2015) Effects of condylar head surface changes on mandibular position in patients with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 43(8):1380–1383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Garino F, Garino GB (2004) Distalization of maxillary molars using the speed system: a clinical and radiological evaluation. World J Orthod 5(4):317–323

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nienkemper M et al (2015) Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using a hybrid hyrax-facemask combination: a controlled clinical study. Angle Orthod 85(5):764–770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang XJ et al (2015) Integrated three-dimensional digital assessment of accuracy of anterior tooth movement using clear aligners. Korean J Orthod 45(6):275–281

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ashmore JL et al (2002) A 3-dimensional analysis of molar movement during headgear treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 121(1):18–29 discussion 29-30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Müller-Hartwich R, Jost-Brinkmann P-G, Schubert K (2016) Precision of implementing virtual setups for orthodontic treatment using CAD/CAM-fabricated custom archwires. J Orofac Orthop / Fortschr Kieferortho 77(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Almeida MA et al (1995) Stability of the palatal rugae as landmarks for analysis of dental casts. Angle Orthod 65(1):43–48

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Peavy DC Jr, Kendrick GS (1967) The effects of tooth movement on the palatine rugae. J Prosthet Dent 18(6):536–542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoggan BR, Sadowsky C (2001) The use of palatal rugae for the assessment of anteroposterior tooth movements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 119(5):482–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jang I et al (2009) A novel method for the assessment of three-dimensional tooth movement during orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 79(3):447–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Okatani IS, Deguchi K (2002) A method for fine registration of multiple view range images considering the measurement error properties. Comput Vis Image Underst 87(1–3):66–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Park, S.Y. and S. Murali. A fast point-to-tangent plane technique for multi-view registration. in 3-D Digital Imaging and Modeling, 2003. 3DIM 2003. Proceedings. Fourth International Conference on. 2003.

  19. Gan N, Xiong Y, Jiao T (2016) Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for whole upper jaws, including full dentitions and palatal soft tissues. PLoS One 11(7):e0158800

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Koch GK, Gallucci GO, Lee SJ (2016) Accuracy in the digital workflow: from data acquisition to the digitally milled cast. J Prosthet Dent 115(6):749–754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Choi DS et al (2010) Accuracy and reliability of palatal superimposition of three-dimensional digital models. Angle Orthod 80(4):497–503

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schmitt CM et al (2016) Soft tissue volume alterations after connective tissue grafting at teeth: the subepithelial autologous connective tissue graft versus a porcine collagen matrix—a pre-clinical volumetric analysis. J Clin Periodontol 43(7):609–617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Akyalcin S et al (2013) Comparison of 3-dimensional dental models from different sources: diagnostic accuracy and surface registration analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144(6):831–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Akyalcin S et al (2013) Diagnostic accuracy of impression-free digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144(6):916–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Kathrin Becker, Benedict Wilmes, Chantal Grandjean & Dieter Drescher

Authors
  1. Kathrin Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benedict Wilmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chantal Grandjean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dieter Drescher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathrin Becker.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

The work was supported by the Department of Orthodontics, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Germany.

Ethical approval

The study protocol was approved by the appropriate local ethical authority (IRB no. 5075, Ethical Committee of the Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Becker, K., Wilmes, B., Grandjean, C. et al. Impact of manual control point selection accuracy on automated surface matching of digital dental models. Clin Oral Invest 22, 801–810 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2155-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2155-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation