The impact of cone beam computer tomography field of view on the precision of digital intra‐oral scan registration for static computer‐assisted implant surgery: A CBCT analysis. Issue 12 (28th October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hamilton, Adam; Singh, Ashi; Friedland, Bernard; Jamjoom, Faris Z.; Griseto, Neil; Gallucci, German O.
• Is Part Of: Clinical oral implants research. Volume 33:Issue 12(2022)
• Page Start: 1273
• Page End: 1281
• Publication Date: 2022-10-28
• Subjects: CBCT -- field of view -- guided implant surgery -- precision -- registration; Dental implants -- Research -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.14009
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-7161

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: Registration of intra‐oral surface scans to cone beam computer tomography (CBCT) is critical in the digital workflow for static computer‐aided implant surgery (sCAIS). This study aimed to assess the impact of CBCT field of view (FoV) on the precision of digital intra‐oral scan registration. Materials and Methods: Cone beam computer tomography data and intra‐oral scans from 20 patients were included. Small FoV CBCT's were created by digitally segmenting a large FoV into three sextants. Virtual implant planning was performed. Digital intra‐oral scans were repeatedly registered onto their corresponding large and small FoV CBCT datasets. The distances and angulations between the matching implant positions of each repeated registration were used to determine the precision of the registration process. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Paired Tests were used to compare the differences between large FoV and small FoV. The threshold for statistical significance was set at p = .05. Results: Differences in 3D implant position based on the registration precision between small FoV and large FoV present at both the implant entry point (0.37 ± 0.25 mm vs 0.35 ± 0.23 mm, p = .482) and implant tip (0.49 ± 0.34 mm vs 0.37 ± 0.24 mm, p < .001). Differences in overall angular precision were observed between small FOV and large FoV (1.43 ± 1.36° vs 0.51 ± 0.38°, p < .001). Conclusion: CBCT with a small FoV is accompanied by greater precision errors in intra‐oral scan registration. However, when sufficient well‐distributed teeth are visible in small FoV CBCT, the precision of digital intra‐oral scan registration appears to be within clinically acceptable limits for sCAIS.