Exploring the Validity of an Optoelectronic Integrated Cone Beam Computed Tomography Jaw Tracking System
Issued Date
2023-06-01
Resource Type
eISSN
20770383
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85164020398
Journal Title
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Volume
12
Issue
12
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Clinical Medicine Vol.12 No.12 (2023)
Suggested Citation
van der Helm H.C., Dieters A.J.A., Dijkstra P.U., van der Meer W.J., Kuijpers-Jagtman A.M. Exploring the Validity of an Optoelectronic Integrated Cone Beam Computed Tomography Jaw Tracking System. Journal of Clinical Medicine Vol.12 No.12 (2023). doi:10.3390/jcm12124145 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/87912
Title
Exploring the Validity of an Optoelectronic Integrated Cone Beam Computed Tomography Jaw Tracking System
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Jaw motion tracking functionalities of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-scanners can visualize, record, and analyze movements of the mandible. In this explorative study, the validity of the 4D-Jaw Motion module (4D-JM) of the ProMax 3D Mid CBCT scanner (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) was tested in vitro. The validity of the 4D-JM was accepted if values differed less than 0.6 mm (three voxels sizes) from the gold standard. Three dry human skulls were used. CBCT scans, the gold standard, were taken in eight jaw positions and exported as three-dimensional (3D) models. Individualized 3D-printed dental wafers ensured the correct positioning of the mandible. Jaw positions were recorded with the 4D-JM tracking device and exported as 3D models. The coordinates of six reference points for both superimposed 3D models were obtained. The differences in the x, y and z-axis and the corresponding vector differences between gold standard 3D models and 4D-JM models were calculated. For the mandible 10% and for the maxilla 90% of the vector differences fell within 0.6 mm of the gold standard. With an increasing vertical jaw opening, larger differences between the gold standard and the 4D-JM 3D models were found. The smallest differences of the mandible were observed on the x axis. In this study, the 4D-JM validity was not acceptable by the authors’ predefined standards.