Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Statement Of Problem: Virtual implant positioning allows greater predictability in oral rehabilitation. Edentulous arch images can be matched in a planning software program by aligning fiducial markers, a procedure known as image registration. Among the steps involved in guided implant surgery, registration may contribute to deviations, leading to the mispositioning of implants and further adverse clinical outcomes.
Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the registration accuracy of edentulous arch images with fiducial markers obtained using different imaging methods.
Material And Methods: Fiducial markers made of gutta percha (G), flowable composite resin (R), metallic spheres (S), and impression material (I) were installed on 4 tomographic guides, which were scanned by tomography to produce Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files and 2 intraoral scanners (VIRTUO and TRIOS) following the dual-scan protocol. The images were registered in the Blue Sky Plan software program (n=12) for each group. Zeiss INSPECT was used to assess registration accuracy through 3-dimensional deviations between groups and references models. Data were analyzed with 2-way ANOVA and the Tukey test (α=.05).
Results: No significant difference was found in registration deviation for all DICOM file groups. In the VIRTUO and TRIOS groups, markers G and R exhibited significantly larger deviations than DICOM G (P<.05). The automatic alignment provided an acceptable image registration only for DICOM G and DICOM R.
Conclusions: Fiducial markers and imaging methods are capable of influencing the registration accuracy of edentulous arch images in a planning software program. The deviations of the DICOM file groups were statistically similar for all markers, while TRIOS and VIRTUO showed greater deviations for markers G and R. The registration method may add inaccuracies to the digital flow before guided implant surgery.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.08.009 | DOI Listing |