Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Apr;19(2):1004-1011.
doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2023.07.001. Epub 2023 Jul 16.

Volumetric analysis of artifacts from fiducial markers under cone beam computed tomography

Hsin-Yu Kuo  1 , Kuan-Ling Lin  2 , Ching-Ying Hsu  2 , Po-Sung Fu  3   4 , Chun-Cheng Hung  3   4 , Seung Jun Song  5
Affiliations

Volumetric analysis of artifacts from fiducial markers under cone beam computed tomography

Hsin-Yu Kuo et al. J Dent Sci. 2024 Apr.

Abstract

Abstract background/purpose: Computer aided implant surgery has been widely adopted in modern implant dentistry. However, absence of reliable anatomic landmarks for superimposing digital data sets for patients with terminal dentition or complete edentulism remained challenging. Utilization of additional fiducial markers intraorally as the reference points for the improvement of accuracy became crucial in implant digital workflow. Nevertheless, the choice of the material for fiducial markers should present the least radiographic artifacts under cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for better accuracy. The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the volume of radiographic artifacts generated through different materials under the image of CBCT.

Materials and methods: Fifteen dental materials were selected and configured into cubic shape. All the materials were scanned initially with the laboratory scanner as the control groups. The samples were scanned by CBCT machine as test groups and the volume of artifact generated under CBCT images were compared and analyzed using 3D modeling software.

Results: Eleven out of fifteen materials could be recognized under CBCT images. Volumetric analysis reported that statistically significant differences among the materials could be noted, and the flowable composite resin presented the least volumetric difference. Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, flowable composite resin, and gutta-percha presented the least deformation and maintained their cubic shapes.

Conclusion: The results of the present study may imply that flowable composite resin compared to all ceramic materials, amalgam and gutta-percha may be a preferable choice when utilized as fiducial markers under CBCT images.

Keywords: Alignment; Artifacts; CBCT; Fiducial markers; Volumetric analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Complete workflow of the testing process.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A simplified version of the testing process.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Reference model (RM) exported with a laboratory scanner. (A) Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max® CAD), pre-sintered. (B) Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max® CAD), post-sintered. (C) ZLS ceramics (Celtra Duo), pre-sintered. (D) ZLS ceramics (Celtra Duo), post-sintered. (E) Zirconia 3Y-TZP (3D pro-Zir®). (F) Packable composite resin (Grandio). (G) Flowable composite resin (Grandio). (H) Gutta-percha (Obtura Flow 150®). (I) Glass ionomer composite liner (Ionoseal®). (J) Resin-modified glass ionomer restorative (Fuji II LC®). (K) Amalgam (Permite).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The materials were scanned with a CBCT machine. (A) Feldspar ceramic (VITABLOCS® Mark II). (B) Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max® CAD), pre-sintered. (C) Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max® CAD), post-sintered. (D) ZLS ceramics (Celtra Duo), pre-sintered. (E) ZLS ceramics (Celtra Duo), post-sintered. (F) Hybrid ceramic (VITA ENAMIC®). (G) Zirconia 3Y-TZP (3D pro-Zir®). (H) PMMA (Ceramill®temp). (I) Bis-acrylic composite (Protemp™ 4). (J) Packable composite resin (Grandio). (K) Flowable composite resin (Grandio). (L) Gutta-percha (Obtura Flow 150®). (M) Glass ionomer composite liner (Ionoseal®). (N) Resin-modified glass ionomer restorative (Fuji II LC®). (O) Amalgam (Permite)
Fig. 5
Figure 5
The DICOM files of the materials were converted to STL files and specified as test models. (A) Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max® CAD), pre-sintered. (B) Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max® CAD), post-sintered. (C) ZLS ceramics (Celtra Duo), pre-sintered. (D) ZLS ceramics (Celtra Duo), post-sintered. (E) Zirconia 3Y-TZP (3D pro-Zir®). (F) Packable composite resin (Grandio). (G) Flowable composite resin (Grandio). (H) Gutta-percha (Obtura Flow 150®). (I) Glass ionomer composite liner (Ionoseal®). (J) Resin-modified glass ionomer restorative (Fuji II LC®). (K) Amalgam (Permite).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Tahmaseb A., Wu V., Wismeijer D., Coucke W., Evans C. The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 16):S416–S435. - PubMed
    1. Tahmaseb A., Wismeijer D., Coucke W., Derksen W. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:25–42. - PubMed
    1. Iturrate M., Eguiraun H., Etxaniz O., Solaberrieta E. Accuracy analysis of complete-arch digital scans in edentulous arches when using an auxiliary geometric device. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121:447–454. - PubMed
    1. Feldkamp L.A., Davis L.C., Kress J.W. Practical cone-beam algorithm. J Opt Soc Am A. 1984;1:612–619.
    1. Schulze R., Heil U., Gross D., et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2011;40:265–273. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources