Reproducibility of three-dimensional facial surface models generated from repeated CT and CBCT scans: an ex vivo study


Abstract

Objectives : This study aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of 3D facial surface models generated from repeated computed tomography (CT) and cone bean CT (CBCT) scans. Material and Methods: Four hydrated-dry skull specimens, with soft-tissue simulation using water, were scanned twice within seconds using a single CT scanner. Eight skulls were scanned twice using two CBCT scanners with different settings. An experienced operator segmented all facial skeletal surfaces using a visually estimated optimal threshold. 3D models from repeated scans were superimposed on the forehead, zygomatic area, and maxilla using a best-fit algorithm. Deviations between superimposed models were assessed through distances in predefined areas and color-coded maps, attributed to segmentation errors or tomographic volume generation inaccuracies. Two facial surfaces from each acquisition setting with the largest deviations were resegmented using the original threshold value. Results: Repeated threshold determinations showed no significant differences (p=0.266; median difference : -6.0, IQR: 39.5). Significant differences were noted between CT and CBCT scanners, but not among CBCT scanners. The median Mean Absolute Distance (MAD) for CBCT was 0.059 mm (IQR: 0.032) versus 0.016 mm (IQR: 0.007) for CT. Color-coded maps confirmed higher consistency in CT and Newtom models, with the low-radiation Planmeca protocol achieving comparable reproducibility. Differences primarily arose from image generation parameters, not threshold estimation. Conclusion: CT provides slightly more consistent 3D facial surface models. However, CBCT scanners, including those using low-radiation protocols, also demonstrate high reproducibility, reinforcing their reliability in diagnosing and planning treatment for facial morphology variations.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].