Accuracy of CBCT and 3D Stereolithographic Model in Identifying the Anterior Loop of the Mental Nerve: A Study on Cadavers.

Abstract

The objective of this ex vivo cadaver study was to determine the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography(CBCT) and 3D stereolithographic(STL) model in identifying and measuring the anterior loop length(ANLL) of the mental nerve. A total of 12 cadavers (24 mental nerve plexus) were used for this study. Standardized CBCT scans of each mandible were obtained both with and without radiographic contrast tracer injected into the mental nerve plexus. STL models of the two acquired CBCT images were made. ANLL were measured using CBCT, STL and anatomy. The measurements obtained from the CBCT images and STL models were then analyzed and compared with the direct anatomic measurements. Paired sample t-test was used. P values less than .05 was considered statistically significant. The mean difference between CBCT and anatomic measurement was 0.04mm and not statistically significant (p= .332) while the mean difference between STL and anatomic measurement was 0.4mm and statistically significant (p=.042). There was also a statistical significant difference between CBCT and STL (p=.048) with the mean difference of 0.35mm. Therefore, CBCT is an accurate and reliable method in determining and measuring the ANLL while the STL over or underestimated the ANLL by as much as 1.51mm and 1.83mm respectively.

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., ).…”

“…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., ). With regard to cadaver studies, only one study scanned both jaws for the measurements (Ganguly et al., ), four studies used mandibles (Gerlach et al., , ; Kobayashi et al., ; Santana et al., ), and one study used a cadaver maxilla only (Loubele et al., ).…”

“…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., ).…”

“…Santana et al. () used a combination of an analogue and a digital caliper on cadaver dissections to establish to extension of the anterior loop of the mental branch relative to the mental foramen. The accuracy of these measuring instruments was specified in only seven studies: Three studies described a 0.01 mm accuracy of the caliper used (Loubele et al., ; Sheikhi et al., ; Waltrick et al., ) and four described an accuracy of 0.02 mm (Al‐Ekrish, ; Al‐Ekrish & Ekram, ; Al‐Ekrish et al., ; Luangchana 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., ).…”