Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The effect of threshold level on bone segmentation of cranial base structures from CT and CBCT images

Abstract

The use of a single grey intensity threshold is one of the most straightforward and widely used methods to segment cranial base surface models from a 3D radiographic volume. In this study we used thirty Cone Beam Computer Tomography (CBCT) scans from three different machines and ten CT scans of growing individuals to test the effect of thresholding on the subsequently produced anterior cranial base surface models. From each scan, six surface models were generated using a range of voxel intensity thresholds. The models were then superimposed on a manually selected reference surface model, using an iterative closest point algorithm. Multivariate tests showed significant effects of the machine type, threshold value, and superimposition on the spatial position and the form of the created models. For both, CT and CBCT machines, the distance between the models, as well as the variation within each threshold category, was consistently increasing with the magnitude of difference between thresholds. The present findings highlight the importance of accurate anterior cranial base segmentation for reliable assessment of craniofacial morphology through surface superimposition or similar methods that utilize this anatomical structure as reference.

Introduction

Historically, superimpositions of cephalometric radiographs have been used to assess growth and treatment effects on craniofacial morphology1. However, dimensional reduction, magnification, distortion, and overlapping of anatomical structures are inherent limitations of 2D imaging2. 3D imaging techniques, on the other hand, are free of magnification and overlapping of neighboring structures.

Reported techniques for the superimposition of 3D datasets include landmark-based superimposition, surface-based superimposition, or voxel-based superimposition of form-stable anatomical structures3,4,5. The surface-based technique offers the advantage of easier data handling, processing, storage, and post-processing, and thus, allows for better communication among scientists and easier evaluation of the superimposition outcomes3. However, there are potential sources of error including the form of the data, the surface creation and processing (e.g. smoothing, segmentation), the transformation model, and the choice of reference structures2.

The anterior cranial base is a standard superimposition reference structure of the craniofacial area3,6, due to the anatomical stability of its form since early life stages7 and its central location within the craniofacial complex8. Therefore, proper imaging of this reference structure is a prerequisite for valid superimposition outcomes.

The image quality of 3D radiographic scans depends on various parameters such as the scanning unit, the examination time, tube voltage and amperage, spatial resolution/voxel size, as well as the field of view (FOV) and the examined object, especially in CBCT scans9. CBCT is the radiographic method of choice for dental and maxillofacial surgery patients. It offers less radiation exposure, lower acquisition times, and has a lower cost than conventional CT, in the expense, however, of decreased quality. Furthermore, CBCT imaging produces different voxel values (radiographic densities) for similar structures in different areas of the scanned volume10,11,12.

Thus, the threshold value used for bone segmentation is a critical factor2 especially when treating CBCT data13 that may present low contrast, inhomogeneity, noise, and artifacts. Ideally, different threshold values should be used for different regions of the head14. Currently, however, one threshold value is arbitrarily selected by software and is sometimes manually adjusted by the user. Previous studies have tested the effect of bone segmentation procedures on surface-model accuracy13,14,15,16,17,18,19, but most did not use actual patient data and none focused on the anterior cranial base.

The primary objective of this study was to explore the effect of varying single threshold values used for bone segmentation of the anterior cranial base, on the produced surface models. Such models are then regularly used for superimposing successive patient head scans to assess craniofacial changes over time. CT versus CBCT data and high versus low quality/radiation data were tested.

Materials and Methods

Ethical approval

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics and Research Committee of the 251 Hellenic Airforce Hospital, Athens, Greece (approval number: 076/10571/16.06.2018). The methods were carried out in accordance to the relevant guidelines and regulations. All participants signed an informed consent prior to the use of their data in the study.

Sample

The study sample consisted of four groups of pre-existing scans; three groups of 10 large field of view (cranial base to mandible) CBCTs and one group of 10 CTs (including the cranial base). All groups had balanced sex distribution and images were of acceptable quality for craniofacial morphology assessment, as assessed by visual inspection. The images were originally acquired for clinical purposes based on the ALADA (as low as diagnostically acceptable) principle. One CBCT group (A) included lower quality images, whereas two CBCT groups (B and C) included regular quality CBCT images, originally used to assess craniofacial morphology. The CT group (D) comprised high quality images that were generated in a hospital to assess pathological conditions. Detailed information on machines and image acquisition protocols is provided in Table 1 and sample images of each group are shown in Fig. 1.

Table 1 Machines and settings used to obtain the images tested in this study.
Figure 1
figure 1

Sample images of each group showing the anterior cranial base region. Images of groups A, B, and C are CBCT scans. Image of group D is a CT scan.

The inclusion criteria used for sample selection were the following:

  • 3D radiographic scans of patients 10–14 years of age

  • No scans with extensive metal artifacts that might have affected the depiction of the cranial base on the image

  • No scans with signs of high noise that would not be originally accepted to assess craniofacial morphology

  • Voxel size between 0.25–0.4 mm3 for CBCTs and smaller than 0.5 mm3 for CTs

  • Scans including the entire anterior cranial base.

Bone segmentation and Surface model generation

The DICOM files of each CBCT and CT scan were imported in Viewbox 4 software (version 4.1.0.1 BETA 64, dHAL software, Kifisia, Greece). One trained operator (L.F.) established a threshold value as “reference” for bone segmentation, as follows: first, the operator selected the range of grayscale values of each radiographic volume, by identifying the minimum (soft-tissue structures) and maximum (hard-tissue structures) value of interest, on the histogram of the scan. Then, any extreme grayscale values, attributed for example to artifacts, were excluded, and the images were reprocessed to increase contrast (Supplementary Figure S1, A and B). The original grayscale range of the voxels of interest, as well as the reference threshold value, of each scan were rescaled on a 0 to 1,000 scale for consistency reasons. To define the reference threshold for each scan, the osseous structures of the anterior cranial base were manually segmented, resulting in two groups of voxels; the anterior cranial base (ACB) voxels and the non-ACB voxels (Supplementary Figure S1, C and D). We disregarded the internal voxels of both groups, i.e. those that were completely surrounded by voxels of the same group, and kept the voxels that had at least one neighbor belonging to the other group. The grayscale values of these voxels, belonging to the interface between the ACB and the surrounding structures, were exported to Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond WA, USA). The interface voxels correspond both to bone and soft tissue, and, due to the volume averaging effect20,21, they have an intermediate grayscale value. The average grayscale value of the interface voxels was computed and considered the “reference” threshold for anterior cranial base segmentation.

On the rescaled greyscale range of 0–1,000, the soft tissues in the CBCT images had voxel values in the lower range, up to approximately 400, and bone voxels had values that started from around 260. The observed overlap is expected, mainly due to artefacts of CBCT images22,23,24. We covered most of this range by arbitrarily choosing a total of 6 threshold values, 20 units apart, 3 on either side of the reference threshold, to extract seven anterior cranial base surface models from each scan (reference threshold, +20, +40, +60, −20, −40, −60; Fig. 2). The area of interest tested in the study was selected on the reference surface model that was also considered the reference for superimpositions (Fig. 3). Furthermore, for each scan, the operator visually defined a threshold value, to simulate the usual practice and test its consistency with the manually generated reference value.

Figure 2
figure 2

(AC) Image of a patient of Group B, showing the selection obtained through each threshold value used to generate the surface models for the study. The colour coding represents the different threshold values. (A) Reference threshold value, (B) all thresholds, superimposed on the same CBCT slice, (C) all thresholds, without background.

Figure 3
figure 3

(A,CH) Seven anterior cranial base surface models of a CBCT scan from group B extracted using different thresholds (A: reference threshold, C: +20, D: +40, E: +60, F: −20, G: −40, H: −60). The blue colour in image A defines the exact anterior cranial base structure that was used in the study (black arrow, B). This included the upper surface of the major, central part of the anterior cranial fossa floor, of the sphenoid and the frontal bone, as well as the anterior clinoid processes. The midline structures, especially of the ethmoid bone were excluded.

Data generation and superimposition process

The six anterior cranial base surface models were compared to the reference model of each scan in three ways. First, the mean absolute distance (MAD) of each model from the reference was calculated. This variable shows the difference of the models, in their original position in space. The models were dense triangular mesh models, obtained from the CBCT or CT voxel data, using a variant of the marching cubes algorithm25 and consisted of approximately 35,000 or 5,500 vertices, respectively. The software measured the distance of each vertex point of one mesh model to the closest point on the second mesh model and calculated the average value, the MAD.

The six models were then superimposed on the reference model, through a variant of the iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm26, under the following software settings: 100% estimated overlap of meshes, matching point to plane, exact nearest neighbor search, 100% point sampling, 50 iterations. The rotation and translation required for best fit superimposition of each model to the reference model was measured to describe differences between the original position of the models and the final position obtained after the superimposition. Finally, the MAD between each of the superimposed models from the reference model was measured to test the similarity of the cranial base models, independent of their position in space. Zero translation and rotation and zero MAD prior to superimposition were perceived as no effect of threshold on the subsequent models.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out with IBM SPSS for Windows (Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp) and the PERMANOVA software27,28.

Raw data were tested for normality of distribution through the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. Evidence of non-normality was present, and thus, non-parametric statistics were applied.

Differences in the measured variables were evaluated using permutational multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), with factorial mixed or random effects models. Patient was set as a covariate in all cases to account for possible matching and clustering effects. Pair-wise a-posteriori comparisons were performed when significant differences were detected by the multivariate model and further investigation was considered reasonable.

Spatial and morphological differences between the cranial base surface models were assessed before and after the superimposition, respectively. This was performed by testing three factors and their possible interactions: machine (random factor; 4 machines), superimposition status (fixed factor; 2 statuses: before, after), and threshold (random factor: 6 thresholds). Machine and threshold were crossed factors, whereas superimposition was nested in threshold factor. The MAD between the cranial surface models was the testing variable.

Spatial and morphological differences between surface models were also tested using the movement performed by each model, to be superimposed on the reference model, as the testing variable. For this, two crossed factors and their possible interactions were analyzed: machine (random factor; 4 machines) and threshold (random factor: 6 thresholds). All vectors of positional change of each surface model were considered as dependent variables (6 vectors: x-lateral movement, y- anteroposterior movement, z-vertical movement, x-rotation, y-rotation, z-rotation).

Permutational MANCOVA was done on Euclidean distances calculated from raw data. The P-value was calculated on raw data through permutation of residuals under a reduced model, with 999 random permutations. In cases when there were few unique permutations possible Monte Carlo asymptotic p-value was used instead27 (PERMANOVA).

In all cases, a two-sided significance test was carried out at an alpha level of 0.05. Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise a-posteriori multiple comparison tests that were performed in a paired manner through Friedman’s or Wilcoxon’s signed-rank tests.

Method error

The whole surface model generation and superimposition process was repeated by the same operator (L.F.) after a 4 week-period, for 12 randomly chosen radiographic scans (3 from each group).

Results

Method error

The median difference between repetitions in the range of grayscale values selected to be rescaled from the original histogram was 1 (range: −28, 43; Wilcoxon’s signed rank test, p = 0.289), which was considered negligible compared to the original extent of relevant grayscale values (median: 2175; range: 1842, 2829).

The difference between repeated visually defined thresholds was also very small (median: −4; range: −23, 18) and not significant (Wilcoxon’s signed rank test, p = 0.530).

Differences between repeated manually defined reference thresholds were also small and not significant before (median: 1; range: −64, 72; Wilcoxon’s signed rank test, p = 0.784) and after rescaling (median: −4.8; range: −23.5, 42; Wilcoxon’s signed rank test, p = 0.583).

The differences between repeated calculations of the MAD values between models prior to and following superimposition on the reference model, were consistently identical. The same was true for the rotation and translation required for best fit superimposition of each model to the reference model.

Visually vs. manually defined reference threshold

The median difference between the visually and manually defined thresholds can be considered small (median: 36.5, range: −61, 253), when compared to the original extent of the grayscale values (median: 2175; range: 1842, 2829), but it was statistically significant (Wilcoxon’s signed rank test, p = 0.001). The median absolute difference was of similar extent (median: 44.5, range: 1, 253). Supplementary Figure S2 shows colour maps of the surface models that represent the minimum, median and maximum differences.

MAD of the original models obtained through different thresholds from the reference model

Multivariate tests showed a significant effect of all three factors (machine, threshold, superimposition) on the results, as well as significant interactions of the machine, with the threshold and the superimposition factor (p < 0.05, Table 2).

Table 2 Non parametric MANCOVA on MAD of the models obtained through different thresholds from the reference model, by different machines, thresholds, and superimposition statuses. Three factors and their interactions were analyzed having “patient” as a covariate: machine (random factor; 4 machines), threshold (random factor; 6 thresholds) and superimposition status (fixed factor; before and after superimposition). Machine and threshold were crossed factors, whereas superimposition was nested in threshold factor. *p < 0.05.

There were detectable MADs between the original (prior to superimposition) models segmented from the DICOM files through different threshold values and the reference model, for all the machines tested. The MAD values were consistently below 0.5 mm for all CBCT machines (median: 0.15, range: 0.04, 0.56 mm; within threshold category Wilcoxon signed rank tests between CBCT groups, P > 0.005). In general, threshold effect was higher for the CT machine, reaching values higher than 0.5 mm in certain cases (median: 0.31, range: 0.09, 0.95 mm; within threshold category Friedman tests, P < 0.005, Wilcoxon signed rank tests between the CT with the CBCT groups, P < 0.005). The distance between the models, as well as the variation within each threshold category, consistently increased with an increase or decrease of the threshold value used in each case (within machine group Friedman test: P < 0.005, Wilcoxon signed rank test: P < 0.005; Figs. 4 and 5).

Figure 4
figure 4

Colour maps showing the differences (distances) of the anterior cranial base models produced through various thresholds (A:+20, B: +40, C: +60, D: −20, E: −40, F: −60), from the reference model, for a single CBCT image of Group B, before superimposition.

Figure 5
figure 5

Box plots showing the MAD (mm) of all surface models of each group obtained with the different thresholds from the reference model, before and after the best fit superimposition of each model with the reference (Refer.).

Following the best-fit superimposition of the reference surface model to the models obtained through different thresholds, there were still detectable differences in the obtained MAD values for all the machines tested in the study. For the three CBCT machines, the MAD values were slightly decreased compared to those calculated before the best-fit registration (median: 0.13, range: 0.04, 0.55 mm; within threshold category Wilcoxon signed rank tests between CBCT groups, P > 0.005). On the contrary, the CT machine presented considerably reduced MAD values (median: 0.16, range: 0.05, 0.51 mm), reaching similar levels to those of the CBCT groups (within threshold category Friedman tests, P > 0.05). Both, CT and CBCT machines had analogous effects to the magnitude of difference between thresholds and the reference threshold, in a way similar to that prior to superimposition. The higher the difference between thresholds the higher the MAD reduction following the superimposition (within machine group Friedman test: P < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed rank test: P < 0.005; Figs. 5 and 6).

Figure 6
figure 6

Colour maps showing the differences (distances) of the anterior cranial base models produced through various thresholds (A: +20, B: +40, C: +60, D: -20, E: −40, F: −60), from the reference model, for a single CBCT image of Group B, after best fit superimposition.

Positional change of the original models obtained through different thresholds, after their superimposition with the reference model

Multivariate tests showed that threshold level was the only factor that exerted a significant effect on the movement required to register each anterior cranial base model to the reference model (p < 0.05, Table 3). Group D showed larger movements, which was in accordance to the outcomes reported above. For all groups, all movements consistently tended to increase as the difference of the individual threshold values from the reference threshold increased. For all four machines, there was a slight tendency for models produced using thresholds smaller than the reference, to show slightly larger change from their original position to that obtained after superimposition with the reference model. Vertical linear movements and anteroposterior rotational movements consistently reached the largest values for all machines (Fig. 7).

Table 3 Non parametric MANCOVA on positional changes (movement of the original models obtained through different thresholds, required to superimpose them with the reference model) by different machines and thresholds. Two crossed factors and their interactions were analyzed having “patient” as a covariate: machine (random factor; 4 machines) and threshold (random factor; 6 thresholds). *p < 0.05.
Figure 7
figure 7

Box plots showing the positional change of the original models (rotation: °, translation: mm) obtained through different thresholds that occurred after their superimposition with the corresponding reference model (X - axis: lateral, positive right; Y - axis: anteroposterior, positive posterior; Z - axis: vertical, positive up; Refer. Reference).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to test the outcome of single-threshold based bone segmentation on the anterior cranial base surface model. The anterior cranial base is a standard superimposition reference area used for the assessment of craniofacial morphology, in various disciplines. Here we showed significant effects of the used threshold that were also related to the type of images (CT or CBCT). This might have important implications for the surface superimposition outcome of serial 3D radiographic images that are registered on the cranial base, since small inconsistencies in the superimposition reference areas have been shown to considerably affect the superimposition outcomes29.

The results showed that the origin of the data is a significant contributing factor. CT provides high quality images but the high radiation dose, cost30, and limited accessibility restricts its use in routine dentistry. CBCT scans offer adequate quality images for diagnosis, treatment planning and progress/outcome evaluation at lower cost and radiation dose. However, an important limitation of CBCTs stems from the way the volume is generated and reconstructed, which differs from that of a CT machine. In CBCTs, the greyscale value of a specific voxel is affected by its position within the image volume, meaning that two voxels with identical tissue density, located at different positions in the scan, might not have the same grayscale value in the reconstructed image. Interestingly, this was favorable for the effect that thresholding had on the segmented models, because the variation in thresholds in CBCTs, affected less the subsequent models, as compared to CT images. However, it should be noted here that bone segmentation through a single threshold is more straightforward in CT images, due to the correspondence of grayscale values to Hounsfield units. Therefore, the selection of a single threshold value on an actual CT scan is more accurate and this was also evident from the repeated selections performed in the present study.

Other factors that may affect image quality are related to the radiographic machine, the scanning parameters, the reconstruction algorithm, FOV, image contrast, signal to noise ratio and patient-specific issues12,22,31,32. To be able to generalize our findings, we tested three CBCT machines and images that were obtained under different settings and were of different quality. Indeed, the results were robust for all CBCT images, suggesting that data obtained with lower radiation protocols might not be less reliable in terms of superimposition outcomes. Data from one CT machine were also assessed to include an additional comparison group of a different type and this had a significant effect on the results.

Prior to superimposing the various models on the reference one, the CT derived models showed larger MAD values compared to the CBCT derived models. This could be attributed to the more uniform effect of thresholding on the CT images, leading to higher differences in the spatial position of the segmented models. On the other hand, on the CBCT images, this effect was limited. The non-correspondence of Hounsfield units to greyscale values obtained from a CBCT scan, as well as the limitations of CBCT images that were discussed previously might be related to this finding, which seems, however, to be favorable for the outcomes in this respect. Another possible explanation could be the slightly larger voxel size of the CT compared to the CBCT images. Following the superimposition of the models with the reference surface model, there were still significant deviations from zero in the MAD values obtained from all the machines tested, but the reduction of MAD values was higher for CT images, reaching values similar to those obtained from the CBCT images. The fact that anteroposterior rotations consistently reached the highest values could be due to the porosity of anterior skeletal structures, where a higher threshold effect can be expected in comparison to posterior sites that present denser bone5,33.

The findings of the present study are important not only when considering surface-based registration on the anterior cranial base, but also for outcome assessment following landmark- or voxel-based superimposition. When evaluating pairs of models to assess changes that occurred between two time points, the effect of thresholding is present twice; once on the first and once on the second model5. Thus, it is a factor that may artificially distort the morphology of the cranial base structures, affecting the outcome of a surface-based superimposition. It might also act in addition to other factors that could affect the surface model morphology over time, such as those related to image inaccuracies or to changes due to growth or aging.

Our sample consisted of individuals aged 10–14 years of age, which are still growing, but not at the anterior cranial base structures, where growth ceases early in development7. This sample was selected because it represents the age group of the typical orthodontic patient; however, since the anterior cranial base structures are already fully formed at this age, similar results would be expected in an adult sample.

Surface models do not contain any volumetric data that are originally available after a 3D radiographic examination, but use 3D surface data instead. While this leads to a reduction of information, on the other hand it allows for processing only the most clinically relevant data. Therefore, handling and processing, as well as data storage, become faster and easier. The 3D model of a patient can be superimposed on other such models of the same or other patients to provide reliable outcomes3. The surface-based registration technique that was used in this study is well tested3,4,34 and has been previously shown to work properly under similar designs5,35,36. This was confirmed here by the perfectly reproducible results through repeated superimpositions. The landmark-based registration largely depends on the accuracy of landmark identification. When few landmarks are used, it is faster and easier, but then small mistakes can have a big effect3,37. The voxel-based technique could be an alternative that does not need bone segmentation5. However, for the visualization and the detailed assessment of superimposition outcomes segmentation and surface model creation is still required5.

Manual bone segmentation of every single CBCT image/section could be a solution to the single-threshold based segmentation techniques, but it is considered unrealistic since it would require several hours to be performed in a single dataset and would still be prone to error14. Alternatives to overcome this problem have been suggested in the literature14,38,39, but the single threshold approach is still the standard process offered by most relevant dental software for simplicity reasons. The range of grayscale values tested in the present study was verified through visual inspection of several datasets and, based on the generated surface models, was considered to be realistic in terms of potential selection by an operator or a software. The differences between manual and visually defined reference thresholds, as well as between repeated threshold selections, were within the range and comparable to the different thresholds tested in the present study, confirming the applicability of our results in actual conditions. Similar intra- and inter-operator differences in the selected thresholds were also exhibited in a recent relevant study5.

One limitation of the present study is the fact that no gold standard (true model) was used. One threshold value was manually selected as the reference value for each scan. Although this served the aim of the study, the used reference model might still be prone to errors, as the voxels to extract the cranial base surface model were chosen in a subjective manner. A gold standard model could be a high quality 3D surface scan of the anterior cranial base of a dry skull. However, this would not fully represent the clinical reality of a regular CBCT or CT scan of a patient’s head, where the true model is impossible to be obtained. Another limitation of the study is that three CBCT machines were tested and the possibility of obtaining different results on images from other machines, cannot be excluded. Furthermore, only one operator, trained from an experienced practitioner, ran all the tests. Inter-examiner reliability was therefore not tested, but intra-examiner reliability showed satisfactory results. Finally, this study was performed on 3D images of growing patients. We expect similar results in adult patients, but further studies might be needed to confirm this.

Conclusion

The level of the single threshold used to perform bone segmentation of cranial base structures from 3D radiographs has a significant impact on the subsequent surface models; with changes being affected by image type. Threshold effects are related to spatial positioning of the surface model and to its form. Effects were more uniform for the CT scans, mainly affecting the position of the surface models in space. The non-uniform effects observed on the CBCT data reflect limitations of this imaging modality related to grayscale values and tissue density. They were similar for different CBCT images and lead to restricted effects of thresholding on the spatial position of the subsequent models. Both for CT and CBCT machines the effects were in accordance to the magnitude of difference between thresholds.

The findings of the study might have important implications for the validity of 3D superimposition outcomes when surface models extracted through a single threshold are used to superimpose serial patient images or to demonstrate changes that occurred during time.

Data availability

All data are available in the main text or the extended data. The protocols and datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Bjork, A. & Skieller, V. Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible - a synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years. Eur. J. Orthod. 5, 1–46 (1983).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Halazonetis, D. J. From 2-dimensional cephalograms to 3-dimensional computed tomography scans. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 127, 627–637 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gkantidis, N. et al. Evaluation of 3-dimensional superimposition techniques on various skeletal structures of the head using surface models. PLoS One. 10, e0118810 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Almukhtar, A., Ju, X., Khambay, B., McDonald, J. & Ayoub, A. Comparison of the accuracy of voxel based registration and surface based registration for 3D assessment of surgical change following orthognathic surgery. PLoS One. 9, e93402 (2014).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Häner, S. T., Kanavakis, G., Matthey, F. & Gkantidis, N. Voxel-based superimposition of serial craniofacial CBCTs: reliability, reproducibility, and segmentation effect on hard-tissue outcomes. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 23, 92–101 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ponce-Garcia, C. et al. Reliability of three-dimensional anterior cranial base superimposition methods for assessment of overall hard tissue changes: A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 88, 233–245 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Afrand, M., Ling, C. P., Khosrotehrani, S., Flores-Mir, C. & Lagravere-Vich, M. O. Anterior cranial-base time-related changes: A systematic review. Am. J. of Orthod. and Dentofacial Orthop. 146, 21–32 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lieberman, D. E., McBratney, B. M. & Krovitz, G. The evolution and development of cranial form in Homosapiens. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 99, 1134–9 (2002).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Miracle, A. C. & Mukherji, S. K. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 1: physical principles. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 30, 1088–1095 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Swennen, G. R. & Schutyser, F. Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs cone-beam computed tomography. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 130, 410–416 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mah, P., Reeves, T. E. & McDavid, W. D. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 39, 323–335 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Molteni, R. Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 116, 105–119 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fourie, Z., Damstra, J., Schepers, R. H., Gerrits, P. O. & Ren, Y. J. Segmentation process significantly influences the accuracy of 3D surface models derived from cone beam computed tomography. Eur. J. Radiol. 81, E524–E530 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang, L. et al. Automated bone segmentation from dental CBCT images using patch-based sparse representation and convex optimization. Med. Phys. 41, 043503 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hassan, B., Couto Souza, P., Jacobs, R., De Azambuja Berti, S. & Van Der Stelt, P. Influence of scanning and reconstruction parameters on quality of three-dimensional surface models of the dental arches from cone beam computed tomography. Clin. Oral. Investig. 14, 303–310 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Loubele, M. et al. Image quality vs radiation dose of four cone beam computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 237, 309–318 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Vandenberghe, B. et al. The influence of exposure parameters on jawbone model accuracy using cone beam CT and multislice CT. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 41, 466–474 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Liang, X. et al. A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT). Part II: On 3D model accuracy. Eur. J. Radiol. 75, 270–274 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Engelbrecht, W. P., Fourie, Z., Damstra, J., Gerrits, P. O. & Ren, Y. The influence of the segmentation process on 3D measurements from cone beam computed tomography-derived surface models. Clin. Oral Investig. 17, 1919–1927 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Molen, A. D. Considerations in the use of cone-beam computed tomography for buccal bone measurements. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 137, S130–135 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Brüllmann, D. & Schulze, R. K. Spatial resolution in CBCT machines for dental/maxillofacial applications-what do we know today? Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 44, 20140204 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pauwels, R., Jacobs, R., Singer, S. R. & Mupparapu, M. CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable? Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 44, 20140238 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pauwels, R., Araki, K., Siewerdsen, J. H. & Thongvigitmanee, S. S. Technical aspects of dental CBCT: state of the art. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 44, 20140224 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Schulze, R. et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 40, 265–273 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lorensen, W. E. & Cline, H. E. Marching cubes: A high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. ACM Siggraph Comput. Graph 21, 163–169 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Besl, P. J. & Mckay, N. D. A Method for Registration of 3-D Shapes. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell 14, 239–256 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Anderson, M. J. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26, 32–46 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Anderson, M. J. PERMANOVA: a FORTRAN computer program for permutational multivariate analysis of variance. Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, New Zealand, 1–24 (2005).

  29. Henninger, E., Vasilakos, G., Halazonetis, D. & Gkantidis, N. The effect of regular dental cast artifacts on the 3D superimposition of serial digital maxillary dental models. Sci. Rep 9, 10501 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Loubele, M. et al. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur. J. Radiol. 71, 461–468 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kim, D. G. Can dental cone beam computed tomography assess bone mineral density? J. Bone Metab 21, 117–126 (2014).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hwang, J. J., Park, H., Jeong, H. G. & Han, S. S. Change in Image Quality According to the 3D Locations of a CBCT Phantom. PLoS One. 11, e0153884 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Chang, Y. B. et al. 3D segmentation of maxilla in cone-beam computed tomography imaging using base invariant wavelet active shape model on customized two-manifold topology. J. Xray Sci. Technol 21, 251–282 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. West, J. et al. Retrospective intermodality registration techniques for images of the head: surface-based versus volume-based. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging. 18, 144–150 (1999).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Vasilakos, G., Schilling, R., Halazonetis, D. & Gkantidis, N. Assessment of different techniques for 3D superimposition of serial digital maxillary dental casts on palatal structures. Sci. Rep. 7, 5838 (2017).

  36. Vasilakos, G., Koniaris, A., Wolf, M., Halazonetis, D. & Gkantidis, N. Early anterior crossbite correction through posterior bite opening: a 3D superimposition prospective cohort study. Eur. J. Orthod 40, 364–371 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lagravere, M. O., Major, P. W. & Carey, J. Sensitivity analysis for plane orientation in three-dimensional cephalometric analysis based on superimposition of serial cone beam computed tomography images. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 39, 400–408 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang, L. et al. Automated segmentation of dental CBCT image with prior-guided sequential random forests. Med. Phys. 43, 336 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gan, Y., Xia, Z., Xiong, J., Li, G. & Zhao, Q. Tooth and Alveolar Bone Segmentation From Dental Computed Tomography Images. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform 22, 196–204 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to the good colleagues who contributed to the selection of the study sample.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

L. Friedli, contributed to design, data acquisition, and interpretation; D. Kloukos, contributed to data acquisition and interpretation; G. Kanavakis, contributed to data acquisition and interpretation; D. Halazonetis, contributed to design and interpretation; N. Gkantidis, contributed to conception and design, data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation. All authors drafted and critically revised the manuscript. All authors gave final approval and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolaos Gkantidis.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Author D.H. owns stock in dHAL Software, the company that markets Viewbox 4. Authors L.F., D.K., G.K. and N.G. declare no competing interests. There was no funding received for this study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Friedli, L., Kloukos, D., Kanavakis, G. et al. The effect of threshold level on bone segmentation of cranial base structures from CT and CBCT images. Sci Rep 10, 7361 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64383-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64383-9

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing