Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39736564›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2024

Evaluation of CBCT reconstructed tooth models at different thresholds and voxels and their accuracy in fusion with IOS data: an in vitro validation study.

Yusong Zhang, Yixin Liu, Tianqi Liu, Jiahao Zhang, Peiying Lin, Dongxu Liu

Abstract readValidation StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yusong ZhangDepartment of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University & Shandong Key Laboratory of Oral Tissue Regeneration & Shandong Engineering Laboratory for Dental Materials and Oral Tissue Regeneration & Shandong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Jinan, China.
Yixin LiuDepartment of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University & Shandong Key Laboratory of Oral Tissue Regeneration & Shandong Engineering Laboratory for Dental Materials and Oral Tissue Regeneration & Shandong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Jinan, China.
Tianqi LiuDepartment of Sociology, School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine, USA.
Jiahao ZhangDepartment of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University & Shandong Key Laboratory of Oral Tissue Regeneration & Shandong Engineering Laboratory for Dental Materials and Oral Tissue Regeneration & Shandong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Jinan, China.
Peiying LinDepartment of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University & Shandong Key Laboratory of Oral Tissue Regeneration & Shandong Engineering Laboratory for Dental Materials and Oral Tissue Regeneration & Shandong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Jinan, China.
Dongxu LiuDepartment of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University & Shandong Key Laboratory of Oral Tissue Regeneration & Shandong Engineering Laboratory for Dental Materials and Oral Tissue Regeneration & Shandong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Jinan, China. liudongxu@sdu.edu.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81571010Science and Technology Bureau of Jinan City 202228102
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aims to evaluate the impact of different thresholds and voxel sizes on the accuracy of Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) tooth reconstruction and to assess the accuracy of fused CBCT and intraoral scanning (IOS) tooth models using curvature continuity algorithms under varying thresholds and voxel conditions.

methodsThirty-two isolated teeth were digitized using IOS and CBCT at two voxel sizes and five threshold settings. Crown-root fusion was performed using a curvature continuity algorithm. Volume, surface area, and crown width of tooth models were compared to laser scanning models, and RMS error was measured. Data were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test, paired t-test, and one-way ANOVA.

resultsVolume amplification errors of CBCT with 0.15 mm and 0.3 mm voxels ranged from 1.22 to 19.07%, surface area errors from 0.18 to 7.78%, crown linearity errors ranged from 2.47 to 7.69%, root linearity errors ranged from - 1.02 to 2.26% and RMS from 0.0691 mm to 0.2408 mm. Crown-root fusion of IOS and CBCT data reduced volume error to -0.90-5.10%, surface area error to -0.66-4.15%, and RMS to 0.0359 mm to 0.0945 mm.

conclusionsVoxel size and threshold settings significantly affect the accuracy of CBCT reconstruction and crown-root fusion. Smaller voxel sizes yield higher reconstruction precision, and different voxel sizes and tooth regions correspond to distinct optimal segmentation thresholds. The validated semi-automated crown-root fusion algorithm significantly enhances overall model accuracy, offering new possibilities for clinical applications.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCone-Beam Computed TomographyImage Processing, Computer-AssistedModels, DentalTooth CrownTooth RootHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalLasersOdontometryAccuracyCBCTMultimodal data fusionThresholdVoxel

Identifiers

PMID39736564
PMCPMC11684253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.