EVALUATION OF THE ACCURACY OF COMPUTER MEASUREMENT OF A PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MODEL OF THE JAW
Aim. The aim of the study was to determine the accuracy of linear measurements using a computer program on a photogrammetric 3D model of the jaw in comparison with instrumental measurement of a plaster model. Materials and methods. The object of the study was a plaster model of the upper jaw with...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
State Institution of Science «Research and Practical Center of Preventive and Clinical Medicine» State Administrative Department
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | Клінічна та профілактична медицина |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://cp-medical.com/index.php/journal/article/view/595 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Aim. The aim of the study was to determine the accuracy of linear measurements using a computer program on a photogrammetric 3D model of the jaw in comparison with instrumental measurement of a plaster model.
Materials and methods. The object of the study was a plaster model of the upper jaw with applied control points and its virtual three-dimensional copy obtained by photogrammetry. Fifty experts measured 7 arbitrary distances between the control points on the plaster model of the jaw using an electronic calliper and on the surface of the photogrammetric 3D model using the linear measurement tool of the Zephyr software. The obtained numerical data were analysed in the JASP statistical processing software.
Results. On average, the difference between the absolute numerical data obtained by the two methods was 0.22 mm. When comparing two independent samples by the Mann-Whitney U-test, a statistically significant difference was recorded in the cases of determining Distance 1 (W = 561; p = 2.045×10-6), Distance 2 (W = 897; p = 0.015) and Distance 4 (W = 777; p = 0.001), whereas the comparison of the measurements of Distance 3 (W = 1227; p = 0.88), Distance 5 (W = 1215.5; p = 0.81), Distance 6 (W = 1098.5; p = 0.30) and Distance 7 (W = 1147; p = 0.48) did not show a statistically significant difference.
Conclusions. The difference between the two measurement methods was comparable to the results of other researchers. The analysis of the results proved that computer measurement on a 3D model is 27% better by the standard deviation criterion, 28% better by the mean error criterion, and 26% better by the coefficient of variation. Thus, the analysis of the above statistical indicators confirms the high level of reproducibility and accuracy of computer measurement results compared to the instrumental performance. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2616-4868 |