Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

Accuracy of linear measurement using cone-beam computed tomography at different reconstruction angles

  • Nikneshan, Sima (Department of Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Aval, Shadi Hamidi (Department of Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Bakhshalian, Neema (Department of Advanced Periodontology, School of Dentistry, University of Southern California) ;
  • Shahab, Shahriyar (Department of Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Shahed University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Mohammadpour, Mahdis (Department of Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Sarikhani, Soodeh (Department of Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Golestan University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2013.11.28
  • Accepted : 2014.08.12
  • Published : 2014.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the effect of changing the orientation of a reconstructed image on the accuracy of linear measurements using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: Forty-two titanium pins were inserted in seven dry sheep mandibles. The length of these pins was measured using a digital caliper with readability of 0.01 mm. Mandibles were radiographed using a CBCT device. When the CBCT images were reconstructed, the orientation of slices was adjusted to parallel (i.e., $0^{\circ}$), $+10^{\circ}$, $+12^{\circ}$, $-12^{\circ}$, and $-10^{\circ}$ with respect to the occlusal plane. The length of the pins was measured by three radiologists, and the accuracy of these measurements was reported using descriptive statistics and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA); p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The differences in radiographic measurements ranged from -0.64 to +0.06 at the orientation of $-12^{\circ}$, -0.66 to -0.11 at $-10^{\circ}$, -0.51 to +0.19 at $0^{\circ}$, -0.64 to +0.08 at $+10^{\circ}$, and -0.64 to +0.1 at $+12^{\circ}$. The mean absolute values of the errors were greater at negative orientations than at the parallel position or at positive orientations. The observers underestimated most of the variables by 0.5-0.1 mm (83.6%). In the second set of observations, the reproducibility at all orientations was greater than 0.9. Conclusion: Changing the slice orientation in the range of $-12^{\circ}$ to $+12^{\circ}$ reduced the accuracy of linear measurements obtained using CBCT. However, the error value was smaller than 0.5 mm and was, therefore, clinically acceptable.

Keywords

References

  1. Torres MG, Campos PS, Segundo NP, Navarro M, Crusoe-Rebello I. Accuracy of linear measurements in cone beam computed tomography with different voxel sizes. Implant Dent 2012; 21: 150-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e31824bf93c
  2. Cavalcanti MG, Rocha SS, Vannier MW. Craniofacial measurements based on 3D-CT volume rendering: implications for clinical applications. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 170-6. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/13603271
  3. Ziegler CM, Woertche R, Brief J, Hassfeld S. Clinical indications for digital volume tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002; 31: 126-30. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600680
  4. Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Loubele M, Schutyser F, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. State-of-the-art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Investig 2006; 10: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0031-2
  5. Kau CH, Richmond S, Palomo JM, Hans MG. Three-dimensional cone beam computerized tomography in orthodontics. J Orthod 2005; 32: 282-93. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531205225021285
  6. Yamamoto K, Ueno K, Seo K, Shinohara D. Development of dento-maxillofacial cone beam X-ray computed tomography system. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003; 6 Suppl 1: 160-2. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0544.2003.249.x
  7. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72: 75-80.
  8. Kumar V, Ludlow JB, Mol A, Cevidanes L. Comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36: 263-9. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/98032356
  9. Li T, MacDonald D. Osseo integrated implants. In: MacDonald D. Oral and maxillofacial radiology: a diagnostic approach. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. p. 296-8.
  10. Boas FE, Fleischmann D. CT artifact: cause and reduction techniques. Imaging Med 2012; 4: 229-40. https://doi.org/10.2217/iim.12.13
  11. Ganguly R, Ruprecht A, Vincent S, Hellstein J, Timmons S, Qian F. Accuracy of linear measurement in the Galileos cone beam computed tomography under simulated clinical conditions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 299-305. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/72117593
  12. Sheikhi M, Ghorbanizadeh S, Abdinian M, Goroohi H, Badrian H. Accuracy of linear measurements of Galileos cone beam computed tomography in normal and different head positions. Int J Dent 2012; 2012: 214954.
  13. Tomasi C, Bressan E, Corazza B, Mazzoleni S, Stellini E, Lith A. Reliability and reproducibility of linear mandible measurements with the use of a cone-beam computed tomography and two object inclinations. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 244-50. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/17432330
  14. Bashizadeh Fakhar H, Abbaszadeh A. Effect of mandibular plane angle on image dimensions in linear tomography. J Dent Med 2011; 24: 42-9.
  15. Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Sanderink G. Accuracy of threedimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31: 129-34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn088
  16. Moshiri M, Scarfe WC, Hilgers ML, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Accuracy of linear measurements from imaging plate and lateral cephalometric images derived from conebeam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 132: 550-60.
  17. Ludlow JB, Laster WS, See M, Bailey LJ, Hershey HG. Accuracy of measurements of mandibular anatomy in cone beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 103: 534-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.04.008
  18. Moshfeghi M, Tavakoli MA, Hosseini ET, Hosseini AT, Hosseini IT. Analysis of linear measurement accuracy obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom VG). Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012; 9: S57-62.

Cited by

  1. Effect of Head Position on Maxillofacial Transverse Measurements Made on the Skull and Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans vol.27, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201601166
  2. The Use of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in Management of Patients Requiring Dental Implants: An American Academy of Periodontology Best Evidence Review vol.88, pp.10, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2017.160548
  3. Detecting the effect of bisphosphonates during osteoporosis treatment on jawbones using multidetector computed tomography: The OSTEOSYR project vol.9, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/jicd.12332
  4. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: A systematic review vol.29, pp.16, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13142
  5. Custom Focal Trough in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Reformatted Panoramic Versus Digital Panoramic for Mental Foramen Position to Aid Implant Planning vol.10, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.25259/jcis_150_2019
  6. The dimensions of the facial alveolar bone at tooth sites with local pathologies: a retrospective cone-beam CT analysis vol.24, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03057-x
  7. Influence of Cone-beam CT Volume Orientation on the Proximity of Maxillary Sinus to the Alveolar Crest at Dental Implant Sites vol.13, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1883
  8. Is the panoramic radiography sufficient for detecting the relationship of the posterior maxillary teeth with maxillary sinus floor? A retrospective study comparative with cone-beam computed tomography vol.10, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4103/ijhas.ijhas_281_20
  9. Implant-to-root dimensions projected by panoramic radiographs inthe maxillary canine-premolar region: implications for dental implant treatment vol.21, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-021-00567-7
  10. Panoramic prediction equations to estimate implant- to-mandibular canal dimensions in the mandibular posterior region: implications for dental implant treatment vol.17, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-021-00270-6