Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

The accuracy of linear measurements of maxillary and mandibular edentulous sites in conebeam computed tomography images with different fields of view and voxel sizes under simulated clinical conditions

  • Ganguly, Rumpa (Department of Diagnostic Sciences, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine Boston) ;
  • Ramesh, Aruna (Department of Diagnostic Sciences, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine Boston) ;
  • Pagni, Sarah (Department of Public Health and Community Service, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine)
  • Received : 2015.12.24
  • Accepted : 2016.02.19
  • Published : 2016.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of varying resolutions of cone-beam computed tomography images on the accuracy of linear measurements of edentulous areas in human cadaver heads. Intact cadaver heads were used to simulate a clinical situation. Materials and Methods: Fiduciary markers were placed in the edentulous areas of 4 intact embalmed cadaver heads. The heads were scanned with two different CBCT units using a large field of view ($13cm{\times}16cm$) and small field of view ($5cm{\times}8cm$) at varying voxel sizes (0.3 mm, 0.2 mm, and 0.16 mm). The ground truth was established with digital caliper measurements. The imaging measurements were then compared with caliper measurements to determine accuracy. Results: The Wilcoxon signed rank test revealed no statistically significant difference between the medians of the physical measurements obtained with calipers and the medians of the CBCT measurements. A comparison of accuracy among the different imaging protocols revealed no significant differences as determined by the Friedman test. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.961, indicating excellent reproducibility. Inter-observer variability was determined graphically with a Bland-Altman plot and by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient. The Bland-Altman plot indicated very good reproducibility for smaller measurements but larger discrepancies with larger measurements. Conclusion: The CBCT-based linear measurements in the edentulous sites using different voxel sizes and FOVs are accurate compared with the direct caliper measurements of these sites. Higher resolution CBCT images with smaller voxel size did not result in greater accuracy of the linear measurements.

Keywords

References

  1. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72: 75-80.
  2. Kobayashi K, Shimoda S, Nakagawa Y, Yamamoto A. Accuracy in measurement of distance using limited cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19: 228-31.
  3. Lascala CA, Panella J, Marques MM. Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 291-4. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/25500850
  4. Stratemann SA, Huang JC, Maki K, Miller AJ, Hatcher DC. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 80-93. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/31349994
  5. Pinsky HM, Dyda S, Pinsky RW, Misch KA, Sarment DP. Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements using cone-beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 410-6. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/20987648
  6. Leung CC, Palomo L, Griffith R, Hans MG. Accuracy and reliability of cone-beam computed tomography for measuring alveolar bone height and detecting bony dehiscences and fenestrations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137(4 Suppl): S109-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.07.013
  7. Cavalcanti MG, Ruprecht A, Vannier MW. 3D volume rendering using multislice CT for dental implants. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002; 31: 218-23. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600701
  8. 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
  9. Patcas R, Markic G, Muller L, Ullrich O, Peltomaki T, Kellenberger CJ, et al. Accuracy of linear intraoral measurements using cone beam CT and multidetector CT: a tale of two CTs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 637-44. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/21152480
  10. Panmekiate S, Apinhasmit W, Petersson A. Effect of electric potential and current on mandibular linear measurements in cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 578-82. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/51664704
  11. Kamburoglu K, Kilic C, Ozen T, Yuksel SP. Measurements of mandibular canal region obtained by cone-beam computed tomography: a cadaveric study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107: e34-42.
  12. Patcas R, Muller L, Ullrich O, Peltomaki T. Accuracy of conebeam computed tomography at different resolutions assessed on the bony covering of the mandibular anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 141: 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.034
  13. Patel S, Dawood A, Ford TP, Whaites E. The potential applications of cone beam computed tomography in the management of endodontic problems. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 818-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01299.x
  14. Hatcher DC. Operational principles for cone-beam computed tomography. J Am Dent Assoc 2010; 141 Suppl 3: 3S-6S.
  15. Watanabe H, Honda E, Tetsumura A, Kurabayashi T. A comparative study for spatial resolution and subjective image characteristics of a multi-slice CT and a cone-beam CT for dental use. Eur J Radiol 2011; 77: 397-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.09.023
  16. Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomography - derived surface models of different voxel sizes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 16.e1-6.
  17. Fleiss JL. Reliability of measurement. In: Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1986. p. 1-32.
  18. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC, et al. Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012; 113: 817-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.03.005
  19. Waltrick KB, Nunes de Abreu Junior MJ, Correa M, Zastrow MD, Dutra VD. Accuracy of linear measurements and visibility of the mandibular canal of cone-beam computed tomography images with different voxel sizes: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 2013; 84: 68-77. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2012.110524
  20. Wyatt CC, Pharoah MJ. Imaging techniques and image interpretation for dental implant treatment. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11: 442-52.
  21. 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
  22. Stratemann SA, Huang JC, Maki K, Miller AJ, Hatcher DC. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 80-93. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/31349994
  23. Liedke GS, da Silveira HE, da Silveira HL, Dutra V, de Figueiredo JA. Influence of voxel size in the diagnostic ability of cone beam tomography to evaluate simulated external root resorption. J Endod 2009; 35: 233-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.11.005
  24. Patcas R, Muller L, Ullrich O, Peltomaki T. Accuracy of conebeam computed tomography at different resolutions assessed on the bony covering of the mandibular anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141: 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.034
  25. Kamburoglu K, Kursun S. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of CBCT images of different voxel resolutions used to detect simulated small internal resorption cavities. Int Endod J 2010; 43: 798-807. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01749.x
  26. da Silveira PF, Vizzotto MB, Liedke GS, da Silveira HL, Montagner F, da Silveira HE. Detection of vertical root fractures by conventional radiographic examination and cone beam computed tomography - an in vitro analysis. Dent Traumatol 2013; 29: 41-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.2012.01126.x
  27. Paes da Silva Ramos Fernandes LM, Rice D, Ordinola-Zapata R, Alvares Capelozza AL, Bramante CM, Jaramillo D, et al. Detection of various anatomic patterns of root canals in mandibular incisors using digital periapical radiography, 3 conebeam computed tomographic scanners, and microcomputed tomographic imaging. J Endod 2014; 40: 42-5.

Cited by

  1. 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, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2017.160548
  2. Diagnosis of alveolar and root fractures in macerated canine maxillae: a comparison between two different CBCT protocols vol.46, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20170037
  3. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: A systematic review vol.29, pp.16, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13142
  4. Effect of Milliamperage Reduction on Pre-surgical Implant Planning Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography by Surgeons of Varying Experience vol.17, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-017-1075-y
  5. Accuracy of artificial bone defects measurements on two cone beam computed tomography scanners. A comparative study vol.4, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fdj.2018.05.006
  6. Accuracy of artificial bone defects measurements on two cone beam computed tomography scanners. A comparative study vol.4, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fdj.2018.05.006
  7. The influence of age, sex, and tooth type on the anatomical relationship between tooth roots and the mandibular canal vol.51, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.20210031
  8. CBCT ‐based assessment of the anatomic relationship between maxillary sinus and upper teeth vol.7, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.451