The in‐vitro accuracy of fiducial marker‐based versus markerless registration of an intraoral scan with a cone‐beam computed tomography scan in the presence of restoration artifact

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesTo determine the effect of restoration artifact (‘metal artifact’) on registration accuracy of an intraoral scan and cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan, comparing fiducial marker‐based registration with markerless registration.Materials and methodsA maxillary model was fitted with multiple configurations of zirconia crowns to simulate various states of oral rehabilitation. Intraoral scans and CBCT scans (half and full rotation) were acquired. Registration was performed using markerless (point‐based registration with surface‐based refinement) and fiducial marker‐based registration. Each experimental condition was repeated 10 times (n = 320). The absolute deviation was measured at the canines and first molars, and the average and maximum values were analysed using multiple linear regression.ResultsR2 was 0.874 for average error and 0.858 for maximum error. For markerless registration, there were 0.041 mm (p < .001) and 0.045 mm (p < .001) increases in average and maximum error per crown, respectively. For fiducial marker‐based registration, the effect of additional crowns was not statistically significant for average (p = .067) or maximum (p = .438) error. For a full arch of crowns, the regression model predicted average and maximum errors of 0.581 and 0.697 mm for the markerless technique, and 0.185 and 0.210 mm for the fiducial marker‐based technique. Overall, the fiducial marker‐based technique was more accurate for four or more crowns. The half rotation scan increased average error by 0.021 mm (p = .001) and maximum error by 0.029 mm (p < .001).ConclusionsUnder the present study's experimental conditions, the fiducial marker‐based technique should be considered if four or more full‐coverage highly radiopaque restorations are present.