Vertical bone measurements from cone beam computed tomography images using different software packages

Abstract

This article aimed at comparing the accuracy of linear measurement tools of different commercial software packages. Eight fully edentulous dry mandibles were selected for this study. Incisor, canine, premolar, first molar and second molar regions were selected. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were obtained with i-CAT Next Generation. Linear bone measurements were performed by one observer on the cross-sectional images using three different software packages: XoranCat ® , OnDemand3D ® and KDIS3D ® , all able to assess DICOM images. In addition, 25% of the sample was reevaluated for the purpose of reproducibility. The mandibles were sectioned to obtain the gold standard for each region. Intraclass coefficients (ICC) were calculated to examine the agreement between the two periods of evaluation; the one-way analysis of variance performed with the post-hoc Dunnett test was used to compare each of the software-derived measurements with the gold standard. The ICC values were excellent for all software packages. The least difference between the software-derived measurements and the gold standard was obtained with the OnDemand3D and KDIS3D (-0.11 and -0.14 mm, respectively), and the greatest, with the XoranCAT (+0.25 mm). However, there was no statistical significant difference between the measurements obtained with the different software packages and the gold standard (p > 0.05). In conclusion, linear bone measurements were not influenced by the software package used to reconstruct the image from CBCT DICOM data.

Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: A systematic review

“…Of those, two were clinical (Eachempati et al., ; Luk, Pow, Li & Chow, ) and 20 ex vivo investigations. The ex vivo studies included 14 studies on dry jaws/skulls (Al‐Ekrish, ; Al‐Ekrish & Ekram, ; Al‐Ekrish, Ekram, Al Faleh, Alkhader & Al‐Sadhan, ; Alkan, Aral, Aral, Acer & Şişman, ; Freire‐Maia et al., ; Kamburoglu, Kilic, Ozen & Yuksel, ; Luangchana, Pornprasertsuk‐Damrongsri, Kiattavorncharoen & Jirajariyavej, ; Neves, Vasconcelos, Campos, Haiter‐Neto & Freitas, ; Pena de Andrade, Valerio, de Oliveira Monteiro, de Carvalho Machado & Manzi, ; Sheikhi, Dakhil‐Alian & Bahreinian, ; Torres, Campos, Segundo, Navarro & Crusoe‐Rebello, ; Vasconcelos, Neves, Moraes & Freitas, ; Veyre‐Goulet, Fortin & Thierry, ; Waltrick et al., ) and six cadaver studies (Ganguly et al., ; Gerlach et al., , ; Kobayashi, Shimoda, Nakagawa & Yamamoto, ; Loubele et al., ; Santana et al., ).…”

“…The two included clinical studies assessed edentulous sites of patients prior to dental implant treatment (Eachempati et al., ; Luk et al., ). The majority of the selected studies used dry human mandibles as the sample (Al‐Ekrish, ; Alkan et al., ; Freire‐Maia et al., ; Kamburoglu et al., ; Kobayashi et al., ; Neves et al., ; Pena de Andrade et al., ; Sheikhi et al., ; Torres et al., ; Vasconcelos et al., ; Waltrick et al., ). Two studies used both the maxilla and mandible of dry skulls (Abboud et al., ; Al‐Ekrish & Ekram, ; Luangchana et al., ), and one study used only three dry maxillae (Veyre‐Goulet et al., ).…”

“…Seven of the ex vivo studies placed the dry jaws/skulls in a container with water to simulate the effects of soft tissue for CBCT imaging (Alkan et al., ; Freire‐Maia et al., ; Neves et al., ; Sheikhi et al., ; Torres et al., ; Vasconcelos et al., ; Veyre‐Goulet et al., ), while Luangchana et al. covered the jaws entirely in acrylic resin for that purpose (Luangchana et al., ).…”

“…For many studies, the stated objectives were often at variance from the methodology and results presented. Of the authors that aimed solely to evaluate the accuracy of CBCT, some used one single machine and fixed acquisition parameters (Gerlach et al., , ; Kamburoglu et al., ; Kobayashi et al., ; Veyre‐Goulet et al., ), while others evaluated the effect of different scan parameters (Al‐Ekrish, ; Ganguly et al., ; Neves et al., ; Torres et al., ; Waltrick et al., ), different reconstruction software (Vasconcelos et al., ), or different monitors (Al‐Ekrish et al., ) on linear accuracy. Furthermore, in several studies the authors’ primary objective was to compare the accuracy of CBCT with other radiographic or clinical diagnostic tests (Al‐Ekrish & Ekram, ; Alkan et al., ; Eachempati et al., ; Freire‐Maia et al., ; Loubele et al., ; Luangchana et al., ; Luk et al., ; Pena de Andrade et al., ; Santana et al., ; Sheikhi et al., ).…”

“…The mean difference was used in 12 studies (Alkan et al., ; Eachempati et al., ; Freire‐Maia et al., ; Gerlach et al., ; Loubele et al., ; Luangchana et al., ; Luk et al., ; Pena de Andrade et al., ; Santana et al., ; Torres et al., ; Vasconcelos et al., ; Veyre‐Goulet et al., ), two studies presented the mean absolute difference (Ganguly et al., ; Gerlach et al., ), and one study also presented the mean relative difference as a percentage (Gerlach et al., ).…”