We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
[Accuracy of different registration methods for laser-scanned dental cast data and maxillofacial cone-bean CT data].
Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue za Zhi = Zhonghua Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi = Chinese Journal of Stomatology 2013 March
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of four dominant methods of three-dimensional multisource data registration.
METHODS: Laser-scanned dental model and maxillofacial cone-bean CT rebuilt model were collected for one orthodontic patient before treatment. Registration process was done based on locating spheres' center, anatomic landmarks, partial characteristic region and global data separately. The registration errors were detected by the function of Geomagic Studio 12.0 software. A comparison of the registration accuracy among these four methods was done by analyzing mean error and standard deviation.
RESULTS: The mean errors and standard deviations of methods of locating spheres' center, anatomic landmarks, partial characteristic region and global data were -(0.082 ± 0.221), -(0.104 ± 0.218), -(0.047 ± 0.138) and -(0.025 ± 0.129) mm respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: ICP registration methods had better reliability than landmark methods. The global registration was more accurate than partial characteristic region registration and the locating spheres' center method was better than anatomic landmarks method.
METHODS: Laser-scanned dental model and maxillofacial cone-bean CT rebuilt model were collected for one orthodontic patient before treatment. Registration process was done based on locating spheres' center, anatomic landmarks, partial characteristic region and global data separately. The registration errors were detected by the function of Geomagic Studio 12.0 software. A comparison of the registration accuracy among these four methods was done by analyzing mean error and standard deviation.
RESULTS: The mean errors and standard deviations of methods of locating spheres' center, anatomic landmarks, partial characteristic region and global data were -(0.082 ± 0.221), -(0.104 ± 0.218), -(0.047 ± 0.138) and -(0.025 ± 0.129) mm respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: ICP registration methods had better reliability than landmark methods. The global registration was more accurate than partial characteristic region registration and the locating spheres' center method was better than anatomic landmarks method.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app