Accuracy of linear and volumetric measurements of artificial ERR cavities by using CBCT images obtained at 4 different voxel sizes and measured by using 4 different software: anex vivoresearch

Abstract

Observers using CBCT images obtained at four voxel sizes performed similarly in the quantification of artificial ERR with clinically insignificant distinction between CBCT softwares used.

The impact of different voxels and exposure parameters of CBCT for the assessment of external root resorptions: A phantom study

“…Liedke et al (6) stated that there was no significant difference between 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 mm 3 voxel sizes in the determination of ERRs. Similarly, Sonmez et al (20) found that there was no significant difference between the different voxel sizes (0.075-0.1-0.15-0.2 mm 3 ) in terms of determining the depth and diameter of the ERRs on the apical and cervical regions. In contrast, in the present study, decreased voxel size provided more accurate measurement in coronal and middle regions.…”

“…Lermen et al (28) reported that there was no significant difference between the apical, middle and coronal regions in determining ERRs with 0.6, 1.2 and 1.8 mm diameter and 0.3, 0.6 and 0.9 mm depth. Sonmez et al (20) also reported that there was no significant difference in the determination of the ERRs in the apical and cervical regions. Similarly, in this study, no significant difference was found between the apical, middle and coronal regions in measuring the size of ERRs in all parameters.…”

“…In the previous literature, many studies report that voxel size is an important factor in determining ERRs (17,18). Similarly, Sonmez et al (20) reported that the sagittal section was more user-friendly and versatile than the axial section in measuring the size of the ERR. According to the results of this study, when we kept the voxel size stable, the change in exposure time and tube current did not significantly change the measurement of the depth and diameter of ERR.…”

“…Lermen et al (28) reported that in the detection of small ERR cavities (0.3 mm depth and 0.6 mm diameter) on the apical region, the sagittal section gave more accurate results than the axial section. Similarly, Sonmez et al (20) reported that the sagittal section was more user-friendly and versatile than the axial section in measuring the size of the ERR. Considering this information, all measurements were performed on sagittal sections in the present study.…”

“…The quality of the images obtained using CBCT depends on parameters, such as milliampere (mA), kilovoltage and voxel size. In our comprehensive literature review, there was a limited number of studies using CBCT to measure the size and depth of the artificial ERR cavity (20). In addition, many studies evaluating ERR have revealed that ERR is only present (or absent) on radiography (1,3,9,(17)(18)(19).…”