Hayo C. Van der Helm

Hayo C. Van der Helm


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

7Years (2020-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 August 2020 in International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
HHHayo C. Van der Helm
Hayo C. Van der Helm
JKJ. Kraeima
J. Kraeima
TXTong Xi
Tong Xi
JJJ. Jansma
J. Jansma
RSR.H. Schepers
R.H. Schepers

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HHHayo C. Van der Helm
Hayo C. Van der Helm
ADArjan Jan Albert Dieters
Arjan Jan Albert Dieters
PDPiet Dijkstra
Piet Dijkstra
WMWicher J. van der Meer
Wicher J. van der Meer
Anne Marie Kuijpers-JagtmanAnne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman
Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman
Jaw motion tracking functionalities of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-scanners can visualize, record, and analyze movements of the mandible. In this explorative study, the validity of the 4D-Jaw Motion module (4D-JM) of the ProMax 3D Mid CBCT scanner (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) was tested in vitro. The validity of the 4D-JM was accepted if values differed less than 0.6 mm (three voxels sizes) from the gold standard. Three dry human skulls were used. CBCT scans, the gold standard, were taken in eight jaw positions and exported as three-dimensional (3D) models. Individualized 3D-printed dental wafers ensured the correct positioning of the mandible. Jaw positions were recorded with the 4D-JM tracking device and exported as 3D models. The coordinates of six reference points for both superimposed 3D models were obtained. The differences in the x, y and z-axis and the corresponding vector differences between gold standard 3D models and 4D-JM models were calculated. For the mandible 10% and for the maxilla 90% of the vector differences fell within 0.6 mm of the gold standard. With an increasing vertical jaw opening, larger differences between the gold standard and the 4D-JM 3D models were found. The smallest differences of the mandible were observed on the x axis. In this study, the 4D-JM validity was not acceptable by the authors’ predefined standards.