Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지

Measurement of hard tissue density of head phantom based on the HU by using CBCT

콘빔형 전산화단층영상에서 HU에 의한 두경부 팬텀 경조직의 밀도 측정

  • Kim, Moon-Sun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Jae-Duk (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Kang, Dong-Wan (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University)
  • 김문선 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 보철학교실) ;
  • 김재덕 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면방사선학교실) ;
  • 강동완 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 보철학교실)
  • Published : 2009.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : The purpose of this study was to determine a conversion coefficient for Hounsfield Units(HU) to material density ($g\;cm^{-3}$) obtained from cone-beam computed tomography ($CBMercuRay^{TM}$) data and to measure the hard tissue density based on the Hounsfield scale on dental head phantom. Materials and Methods : CT Scanner Phantom (AAPM) equipped with CT Number Insert consists of five cylindrical pins of materials with different densities and teflon ring was scanned by using the $CBMercuRay^{TM}$ (Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) volume scanner. The raw data were converted into DICOM format and the HU of different areas of CT number insert measured by using $CBWorks^{TM}$. Linear regression analysis and Student t-test were performed statistically. Results : There was no significant difference (P > 0.54) between real densities and measured densities. A linear regression was performed using the density, $\rho$($g\;cm^{-3}$), as the dependent variable in terms of the HU (H). The regression equation obtained was $\rho=0.00072H-0.01588$ with an $R^2$ value of 0.9968. Density values based on the Hounsfield scale was $1697.1{\pm}24.9\;HU$ in cortical bone, $526.5{\pm}44.4\;HU$ in trabecular bone, $2639.1{\pm}48.7\;HU$ in enamel, $1246.1{\pm}39.4\;HU$ in dentin of dental head phantom. Conclusion : CBCT provides an effective option for determination of material density expressed as Hounsfield Units.

Keywords

References

  1. Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Tissue integrated prostheses: Osseo-integration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. p. 155-63
  2. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. p. 199-209.
  3. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15 years study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1981; 10 : 387-416.
  4. Cox JF, Zarb GA. The longitudinal efficacy of osseointegrated dental implants. A 3-year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987; 2 : 91- 100.
  5. Jaffin R, Bermann C. The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis. J Periodontol 1991; 62 : 2-4. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1991.62.1.2
  6. Matsue I, Zimmermann ER, Collings CK, Best JT. Microdensitometric analysis of human autogenous implant II Two dimensional density and pattern analysis of interproximal alveolar bone. J Periodont 1971;42 : 435-8. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1971.42.7.435
  7. Katoh T, Shimada K, Chiba M, Kobyashi T. The basic study on bone mineral assessment with dual energy radiographic densitometry method. Oral Radiol 1978; 18 : 278-95.
  8. Ishigaki T, Sakuma S, Horikawa Y, Ikeda M, Yamaguchi, H. One-shot dual-energy subtraction imaging. Radiology 1986; 161 : 271-3.
  9. Park WK, Kim JD. A comparative study of quantitative assessment of bone mineral density of mandible. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 1999; 29 : 161-74.
  10. Boris P, Bundgaard F, Olsen A. The CT (Hounsfield unit) number of brain tissue in healthy infants. A new reliable method for detection of possible degenerative disease. Childs Nerv Syst 1987; 3 : 175-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00717896
  11. Robertson DD, Huang HK. Quantitative bone measurements using xray computed tomography with second-order correction. Med Phys 1986; 13 : 474-9. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.595971
  12. Schwarz MS, Rothman SLG, Rhodes ML, Chafetz N. Computed tomography: Part I. Preoperative assessment of the mandible for endosseous implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987; 2 : 137-41.
  13. Schwarz MS, Rothman SLG, Rhodes ML, Chafetz N. Computed tomography: Part II. Preoperative assessment of the maxilla for endosseous implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987; 2 : 143-8.
  14. Taguchi A, Tanimoto K, Ogawa M, Sunayashiki T, Wada T. Effect of size of region of interest on precision of bone mineral measurements of the mandible by quantitative computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1991; 20 : 25-9.
  15. Fanuscu MI, Chang TL. Three-dimensional morphometric analysis of human cadaver bone: microstructural data from maxilla and mandible. Clin Oral Impl Res 2004; 15 : 213-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.00969.x
  16. Norton RM, Gamble C. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Impl Res 2001; 12 : 79-84. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012001079.x
  17. Shahlaie M, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Crigger M. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 1. Quantitative computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18 : 224-31.
  18. Beer A, Gahleitner A, Holm A, Tschabitscher M, Homolka P. Correlation of insertion torques with bone mineral density from dental quantitative CT in the mandible. Clin Oral Impl Res 2003; 14 : 616-20. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00932.x
  19. Shapurian T, Damoulis PD, Reiser GM, Griffin TJ, Rand WM. Quantitative evaluation of bone density using the Hounsfield index. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006; 21 : 290-7.
  20. Turkyilmaz I, Tozum TF, Tumer C. Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography. J Oral Rehabil 2007; 34 : 267-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01689.x
  21. Kim JD, Kim KW, Lim SH. CBCT analysis of three implant cases for treatment planning. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2007; 37 : 171-80.
  22. Goo JG, Kim JS, Kim JD. Quantitative assessment of periimplant bone density (HU) on CBCT image. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2008; 38 : 1-5.
  23. Lagravere MO, Fang Y, Carey J, Toogood RW, Packota GV, Major PW. Density conversion factor determined using a cone-beam computed tomography unit NewTom QR-DVT 9000. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35 : 407-9. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/55276404
  24. Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Dus I, et al. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. Quantitative conebeam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20 : 416-24.
  25. Trisi P, Rao W. Bone classification: clinical-histomorphometric comparison. Clin Oral Impl Res 1999; 10 : 1-7.
  26. Misch CE. Density of bone: effect on surgical approach, and healing. In: Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book; 1999. p. 371-84.
  27. Friberg B, Sennerby L, Roos J, Johansson P, Strid CG, Lekholm U. Evaluation of bone density using cutting resistance measurements and microradiography: an in vitro study in pig ribs. Clin Oral Impl Res 1995; 6 : 164-71. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060305.x
  28. Staniszewska MA, Obrzut M, Rybka K. Phantom studies for possible dose reduction in CT head procedures. Radiat Prot Dosim 2005; 114 : 326-31. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nch571