Emmanuel Promayon

Home Page Publications List Sorted Internship/Stages Teaching Contact

Jump to : Download | Abstract | Keyword | Contact | BibTex reference | EndNote reference |


M. Marchal, M. Chabanas, Y. Payan, C. Marécaux, P. Swider, F. Boutault, E. Promayon, J. Troccaz. Comparison Of Different Soft Tissue Modelling Methods With Post-Operative CT Scan In Maxillofacial Surgery. In 7th International Symposium on Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, CMBBE06, J. Middleton, N. Shrive, M. Jones (eds.), March 2006.


Download paper: Adobe portable document (pdf)

Copyright notice: Disclaimer: this material is presented to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work. Files of articles may be covered by copyright. You may browse the articles at your convenience in the same spirit as you may read a journal or conference proceedings in a public library. Retrieving, copying, distributing these files, entirely or in parts, may violate copyright protection laws. Copyright and all rights therein are retained by authors or by other copyright holders. All person copying this information are expected to adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each author's copyright. In most cases, these works may not be reposted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.


A comparison between different soft tissue modeling methods is proposed in the context of the simulation of the morphological outcomes of maxillofacial surgery.The face soft tissues are modeled using two different approaches: Finite-Element Method (FEM) and Discrete Particle Method (DPM). For the FEM approach, three hypothesis are compared: a linear elastic model with small and large deformation hypothesis, and an hyperelastic Mooney-Rivlin model. For the DPM approach, two models are considered: a simple mass-spring network and a more sophisticated physically-based particle system. This last model improves the classical mass-spring network method by guarantying the tissue incompressibility and by offering a better numerical stability.An evaluation procedure based on a qualitative and quantitative comparison of the simulations with a post-operative CT scan is proposed. A patient specific facial mesh is built from pre-operative CT scan including the inner nodes (attached to the bones) and the outer nodes (modeling the skin surface). All methods use this same initial mesh. The rheological parameters are either extracted from experimental measurements or are those classically used in the literature. Boundary conditions are extracted from the pre- and post-operative CT scans and used by all methods as imposed bone displacements (inner nodes). The resulting facial surfaces (outer nodes) obtained by the different methods are evaluated relatively to one real clinical post-operative surface (also segmented from the CT scan).Performance comparisons focus on accuracy, realism, simulation time and prediction in comparison with the real data. Clinically, the simulations are of good quality and quite coherent with the actual outcome of the surgery. The results of this study allows us to determine which types of methods are appropriate for a given patient, operative mode and medical situation (e.g. pre-operative or per-operative computer assisted medical interventions)


[ Softtissue ]


Emmanuel Promayon http://membres-timc.imag.fr/Emmanuel.Promayon

BibTex Reference

   Author = {Marchal, M. and Chabanas, M. and Payan, Y. and Marécaux, C. and Swider, P. and Boutault, F. and Promayon, E. and Troccaz, J.},
   Title = {Comparison Of Different Soft Tissue Modelling Methods With Post-Operative {CT} Scan In Maxillofacial Surgery},
   BookTitle = {7th International Symposium on Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, CMBBE06},
   editor = {Middleton, J. and Shrive, N. and Jones, M.},
   Month = {March},
   Year = {2006}

EndNote Reference [help]

Get EndNote Reference (.ref)

Home Page Publications List Sorted Internship/Stages Teaching Contact
This page was automatically generated thanks to JabRef and bib2html , 8 February 2019