Accuracy of capturing oncology facial defects with multimodal image fusion versus laser scanning

A comparative evaluation of photogrammetry software programs and conventional impression techniques for the fabrication of nasal maxillofacial prostheses

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The fabrication of facial prostheses is complicated and time-consuming because of the need for accurate impressions of the facial defects and surrounding tissues. Inaccuracies can arise from soft-tissue compression, involuntary patient movements, and insufficient support for the impression material. Various 3-dimensional (3D) imaging and scanning techniques, including photogrammetry, have been introduced, but their accuracy remains insufficiently evaluated.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of 3D digital casts generated by 4 photogrammetry software programs (Agisoft Metashape, 3DF Zephyr, Meshroom, and Polycam) and casts from 2 conventional impression materials (alginate and polyvinyl siloxane [PVS]) for the fabrication of nasal maxillofacial prostheses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A stone cast of a patient's nose was used as the basis for generating a reference digital 3D cast and another 54 test 3D casts. The reference cast was created by scanning the stone cast using a FARO Optor Lab 3D scanner. The 54 test 3D casts were generated and divided into 6 test groups as follows: Agisoft group: 9 3D casts generated using Agisoft Metashape, a commercial personal computer (PC) software program; 3DF Zephyr group: 9 3D casts generated using 3DF Zephyr, a commercial PC software program; Meshroom group: 9 3D casts generated using Meshroom, a free PC software program; Polycam group: 9 3D casts generated using the Polycam, a commercial Android cloud application; PVS group: 9 3D casts generated indirectly by 3D scanning a gypsum cast made from a polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression of the stone nose cast; and Alginate group: 9 3D casts generated indirectly by scanning a master cast made using alginate impressions of the stone nose cast. Deviation measurements of the produced specimens were analyzed using the Geomagic Control X software program, and statistical comparisons were performed employing the Kruskal-Wallis test (α=.05).

RESULTS

The results showed that the 3DF Zephyr group had the smallest deviation measurements (median: 0.057 mm ±0.012) among the 4 photogrammetry software programs, while the alginate impression group had the largest deviations (median: 0.151 mm ±0.094) of the 2 conventional impression materials. Significant differences were observed among the 4 photogrammetry software programs and the 2 conventional impression materials (H=39.41, df=5, P<.001). The casts generated by Agisoft Metashape were significantly more accurate than those produced by Meshroom, Polycam or the conventional impression materials (P=.024, P=.045, P<.001, respectively). The casts produced by 3DF Zephyr were significantly more precise than those created by Meshroom and the conventional impression materials (P=.037, P<.001, respectively). No significant differences were observed between the Agisoft Metashape and 3DF Zephyr groups (P>.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Photogrammetry software programs, specifically Agisoft Metashape and 3DF Zephyr, demonstrated better accuracy than conventional impression materials in creating nasal digital casts. Photogrammetry has the potential to improve workflow and reduce patient discomfort during the fabrication of maxillofacial prostheses. Further research is needed to validate these findings in clinical settings.

IMproving facial PRosthesis construction with contactlESs Scanning and Digital workflow (IMPRESSeD): study protocol for a feasibility crossover randomised controlled trial of digital versus conventional manufacture of facial prostheses in patients with orbital or nasal facial defects

BACKGROUND

Facial prostheses can have a profound impact on patients' appearance, function and quality of life. There has been increasing interest in the digital manufacturing of facial prostheses which may offer many benefits to patients and healthcare services compared with conventional manufacturing processes. Most facial prosthesis research has adopted observational study designs with very few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) documented. There is a clear need for a well-designed RCT to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of digitally manufactured facial prostheses versus conventionally manufactured facial prostheses. This study protocol describes the planned conduct of a feasibility RCT which aims to address this knowledge gap and determine whether it is feasible to conduct a future definitive RCT.

METHODS

The IMPRESSeD study is a multi-centre, 2-arm, crossover, feasibility RCT with early health technology assessment and qualitative research. Up to 30 participants with acquired orbital or nasal defects will be recruited from the Maxillofacial Prosthetic Departments of participating NHS hospitals. All trial participants will receive 2 new facial prostheses manufactured using digital and conventional manufacturing methods. The order of receiving the facial prostheses will be allocated centrally using minimisation. The 2 prostheses will be made in tandem and marked with a colour label to mask the manufacturing method to the participants. Participants will be reviewed 4 weeks following the delivery of the first prosthesis and 4 weeks following the delivery of the second prosthesis. Primary feasibility outcomes include eligibility, recruitment, conversion, and attrition rates. Data will also be collected on patient preference, quality of life and resource use from the healthcare perspective. A qualitative sub-study will evaluate patients' perception, lived experience and preference of the different manufacturing methods.

DISCUSSION

There is uncertainty regarding the best method of manufacturing facial prostheses in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient acceptability. There is a need for a well-designed RCT to compare digital and conventional manufacturing of facial prostheses to better inform clinical practice. The feasibility study will evaluate key parameters needed to design a definitive trial and will incorporate early health technology assessment and a qualitative sub-study to identify the potential benefits of further research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN ISRCTN10516986). Prospectively registered on 08 June 2021,  https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10516986 .

Present and future of extraoral maxillofacial prosthodontics: Cancer rehabilitation

Historically, facial prosthetics have successfully rehabilitated individuals with acquired or congenital anatomical deficiencies of the face. This history includes extensive efforts in research and development to explore best practices in materials, methods, and artisanal techniques. Presently, extraoral maxillofacial rehabilitation is managed by a multiprofessional team that has evolved with a broadened scope of knowledge, skills, and responsibility. This includes the mandatory integration of different professional specialists to cover the bio-psycho-social needs of the patient, systemic health and pathology surveillance, and advanced restorative techniques, which may include 3D technologies. In addition, recent digital workflows allow us to optimize this multidisciplinary integration and reduce the active time of both patients and clinicians, as well as improve the cost-efficiency of the care system, promoting its access to both patients and health systems. This paper discusses factors that affect extraoral maxillofacial rehabilitation's present and future opportunities from teamwork consolidation, techniques utilizing technology, and health systems opportunities.

Accuracy of capturing nasal, orbital, and auricular defects with extra- and intraoral optical scanners and smartphone: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

This in vitro study compares the scanning accuracy of various stationary and portable as well as extra- and intraoral devices for capturing oncological defects.

METHODS

A 3D-printed model of a nasal, orbital, and auricular defect, as well as one of an intact auricle, were digitalized (n = 7 per device) with a stationary optical scanner (Pritiface), a portable extraoral optical scanner (Artec Space Spider), two intraoral scanners (Trios 4 and Primescan), and a smartphone (iPhone 11 Pro). For the reference data, the defect models were digitalized using a laboratory scanner (D2000). For quantitative analysis, the root mean square error value for trueness and precision and mean deviations in millimeters were obtained for each defect type. The data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparison test. For qualitative analysis, a colorimetric map was generated to display the deviation within the defect area and adjacent tissue.

RESULTS

Statistically significant interactions were found in the trueness and precision for defect and scanner type.

CONCLUSION

The Primescan and Artec Space Spider scanners showed the highest accuracy for most defect types. Primescan and Trios 4 failed to capture the orbital defect. The iPhone 11 Pro showed clinically acceptable trueness but inferior precision.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The scanning devices may demonstrate varying accuracy, depending on the defect type. A portable extraoral optical scanner is an universal tool for the digitization of oncological defects. Alternatively, an intraoral scanner may be employed in maxillofacial prosthetics with some restrictions. Utilizing a smartphone in maxillofacial rehabilitation should be considered with caution, because it provides inconsistent accuracy.

Morphometry and displacement analysis of the upper lips following maxillary full-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: a 3D morphometric study

BACKGROUND

With the emergence of three-dimensional (3D) integration technology, analysis of soft tissue displacement and morphological changes after maxillary full-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses can be performed. The aim of this study was to verify the feasibility of the 3D integration method for constructing the relative position of the prostheses and facial soft tissue, evaluate the displacement and morphological variation of the upper lips after maxillary full-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses.

METHODS

Twenty-five maxillary edentulous patients were recruited in this study. At the time of final prosthesis delivery, the 3D prostheses data and three 3D facial profiles were integrated. After method validation, the 3D position changes of seven soft tissue landmarks were used to reflect the 25 upper lips. The variation of four morphological distances were analyzed to reflect the morphological alteration of the upper lips. Two pairs of dentofacial landmarks were used to analyze the sagittal relative position of the prostheses and soft tissue. The included patients were also grouped to determine the impact of sex, upper lip thickness, and length on lip support changes.

RESULTS

The average distance of the two matched relative reliable forehead regions was only 0.32 mm. The sagittal shifts of labrale superius (LS), stomion (STO), crista philtri left (CPHL) and crista philtri right (CPHR) were 3.44 ± 1.39 mm, 2.52 ± 1.38 mm, 3.04 ± 1.18 mm, and 3.12 ± 1.21 mm, respectively. With the exception of the decrease in the length of subnasale (SN)-LS, the length of cheilion right (CHR)-cheilion left (CHL), CPHR-CPHL, and LS-STO significantly increased. The two pairs of dentofacial landmarks had strong positive movement correlations along the sagittal direction. Patients with thinner and longer lips showed more lip support than those with thicker and shorter lips by a clinically insignificant amount.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration method of 3D facial and dental data showed high repeatability in constructing the dentofacial relative position. The linear equations reflecting dentofacial relative position could aid clinicians in evaluating the restoration effect and estimate the upper lip variation.

Use of Laser Systems in Orthodontics

Laser systems have been used in the practice of dentistry for >35 years. Laser systems have so many advantages, such as increase patient cooperation, reduce the duration of treatment time, and help the orthodontists to enhance the design of a patient's smile to improve treatment efficacy, and the success of orthodontic treatments can also be improved by diminishing the orthodontic pain and the discomfort of the patients. Laser systems also have some disadvantages, such as cost, large space requirements for some types, and high-risk potential for physician and patient if not used at the appropriate wavelength and power density, that is why before incorporating lasers into clinical practice, the physician must fully understand the basic science, safety protocol, and risks associated with them. Lasers have many applications in orthodontics, including accelerating tooth movement, bonding and debonding processes, pain reduction, bone regeneration, etching procedures, increase mini-implant stability, soft tissue procedures (gingivectomy, frenectomy, operculectomy, papilla flattening, uncovering temporary anchorage devices, ablation of aphthous ulcerations, and exposure of impacted teeth), fiberotomy, scanning systems, and welding procedures. In reviewing the literature on the use of laser in orthodontics, many studies have been conducted. The purpose of the present study was to give information about the use of laser in the field of orthodontics, the effects of laser during the postoperative period, and its advantages and disadvantages and to provide general information about the requirements to be considered during the use of laser.