Non-contact fluorescence tomography using a cone-beam CT surgical guidance system

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Daly ◽  
Harley Chan ◽  
Nidal Muhanna ◽  
Margarete Akens ◽  
Brian C. Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cone Beam Ct ◽  
Guidance System ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Surgical Guidance ◽  
Fluorescence Tomography

Development & Translation of a Cone-Beam CT Guidance System

2010 ◽  
Vol 143 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. P182-P182
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Siewerdsen ◽  
Gary Gallia ◽  
Gregory Hager ◽  
Douglas Reh ◽  
Russell Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Cone Beam Ct ◽  
Guidance System ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Ct Guidance

Accuracy of a Newly Developed Cone-Beam Computerized Tomography-Aided Surgical Guidance System for Dental Implant Placement: An Ex Vivo Study

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 706-712 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sema Murat ◽  
Kıvanç Kamburoğlu ◽  
Tuncer Özen
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implant ◽  
Computerized Tomography ◽  
Ex Vivo ◽  
Simulation Software ◽  
Guidance System ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Angular Deviation ◽  
Surgical Guidance ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Cone Beam Computerized Tomography

The aim of the present study was to measure the accuracy of the cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT)- aided StentCad Beyond surgical guidance system and to compare bone-supported and tooth/bone-supported guidance by using this system in dental implant placement ex vivo. Five cadaver mandibles were scanned using an Iluma CBCT scanner. After scanning, DICOM slices were transferred to the StentCad Beyond implant simulation software, which was used for preoperative implant planning. Using the StentCad Beyond guidance system, 9 implant drills were inserted using a bone-supported guidance system and 11 using a tooth/bone-supported guidance system. Mandibles were scanned again and these data were transferred to the StentCad Beyond software. Pre- and postoperative information was superimposed using the Rhinoceros version 4 software program, and deviations between planned and actual drill positions were calculated for each implant. In addition, differences between bone-supported and tooth/bone-supported guidance systems were analyzed by t-test, with a significance level of P < .05. Data analysis found a mean coronal deviation of 1.2 ± 0.3 mm and 0.6 ± 0.6 mm, mean apical deviation of 1.3 ± 0.6 mm and 0.7 ± 0.6 mm, mean apical and coronal depth deviation of 1.4 ± 0.3 mm and 1.3 ± 0.3 mm, and mean angular deviation of 4.2° ± 2.0° and 3.0° ± 1.5° for tooth/bone supported and bone-supported guides, respectively. No statistical differences were found in depth or angular deviations between groups (P > .05); however, statistically significant differences between groups were found in mean horizontal coronal deviation (P = .016) and mean horizontal apical deviation (P = .047). The StentCad Beyond system was found to be a reliable guide for placing implants ex vivo.

Intraoperative cone-beam CT spatial priors for diffuse optical fluorescence tomography

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (21) ◽  
pp. 215007 ◽  
Author(s):  
M J Daly ◽  
H Chan ◽  
N Muhanna ◽  
M K Akens ◽  
B C Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cone Beam Ct ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Fluorescence Tomography ◽  
Optical Fluorescence
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document