Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Bone augmentation procedures are established tools for reshaping the alveolar ridge and increasing bone volume. Different approaches are being used to measure postoperative bone volume gain. This study aimed to develop an objective and automated volume measurement tool equally as precise as manual slice-by-slice annotation.
Materials and methods
To evaluate the proposed workflow, we performed an in vitro study with 20 pig mandibles that were grafted using three different grafting techniques—autogenous full block, split block bone and shell augmentation. The pig jaws were scanned pre- and postoperatively using an intraoral scanner. The resulting surface files (baseline, full block, split block, shell) were processed using the new volume-measuring workflow as well as using manual slice-by-slice annotation at baseline (t0) and at 6 months (t1) using the same population. Two TOSTs (Test of One-Sided Significance) and NHSTs (Null Hypothesis Significance Test) were used to compare the two workflows. The intra-rater reliability between t0 and t1 was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients.
Results
The mean difference for the full block augmentation technique was − 0.015 cm3 (p < 0.001); for the split block technique, it was − 0.034 cm3p = 0.01, and for the shell technique, it was − 0.042 cm3. All results were statistically not different from zero and statistically equivalent to zero. The results also showed an excellent absolute intra-rater agreement.
Conclusions
The semiautomatic volume measurement established in this article achieves comparable results to manual slice-by-slice measuring in determining volumes on STL files generated by intraoral scanners and shows an excellent intra-rater reliability.
Graphical Abstract
Funder
Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference14 articles.
1. Jensen SS, Terheyden H. Bone augmentation procedures in localized defects in the alveolar ridge: clinical results with different bone grafts and bone-substitute materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(Suppl):218–36.
2. Rocchietta I, Fontana F, Simion M. Clinical outcomes of vertical bone augmentation to enable dental implant placement: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35(8 Suppl):203–15.
3. Acocella A, Bertolai R, Colafranceschi M, Sacco R. Clinical, histological and histomorphometric evaluation of the healing of mandibular ramus bone block grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation before implant placement. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2010;38(3):222–30.
4. Li Y, Qiao S-C, Gu Y-X, Zhang X-M, Shi J-Y, Lai H-C. A novel semiautomatic segmentation protocol to evaluate guided bone regeneration outcomes: a pilot randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2019;30(4):344–52.
5. Smolka W, Eggensperger N, Carollo V, Ozdoba C, Iizuka T. Changes in the volume and density of calvarial split bone grafts after alveolar ridge augmentation. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2006;17(2):149–55.