Effect of Resolution and Bit Depth on Inferior Alveolar Canal Visualization on Exported Mandibular Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Images

Pour, Daryoush Goodarzi; Sedaghati, Azin; Shamshiri, Ahmad Reza

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2019.12.022

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Corp., Kyoto, Japan) was found to provide the best image quality compared to the Iluma Ultra Cone-beam CT Scanner (3M Imtec, Ardmore, OK, USA), Kodak 9000 Extra-oral imaging system (Eastman Kodak Co, Rochester, NY, USA), and Vatech PanX-Duo3D_Pano/CBCT (Vatech, Seoul, Republic of Korea) [24]. Pour et al [25] suggested that exporting mandibular CBCT images with a resolution of 0.32 mm and a 12-bit depth would yield good-to-moderate radiographic visibility of the IAC. Jasa et al [26] conducted an in vitro study to assess the impact of exposure parameters and slice thickness on the visibility of clear and unclear IAC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Slice Thickness, Sharpness, and Contrast Adjustments on Inferior Alveolar Canal Segmentation on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scans: A Retrospective Study

Issa,

Riad,

Olszewski

et al. 2023

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This retrospective study aims to investigate the impact of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) viewing parameters such as contrast, slice thickness, and sharpness on the identification of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAC). A total of 25 CBCT scans, resulting in 50 IACs, were assessed by two investigators using a three-score system (good, average, and poor) on cross-sectional images. Slice thicknesses of 0.25 mm, 0.5 mm, and 1 mm were tested, along with varying sharpness (0, 6, 8, and 10) and contrast (0, 400, 800, and 1200) settings. The results were statistically analyzed to determine the optimal slice thickness for improved visibility of IAC, followed by evaluating the influence of sharpness and contrast using the optimal thickness. The identified parameters were then validated by performing semi-automated segmentation of the IACs and structure overlapping to evaluate the mean distance. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability were assessed using Kappa statistics, and inferential statistics used Pearson’s Chi-square test. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability for all parameters were significant, ranging from 69% to 83%. A slice thickness of 0.25 mm showed consistently “good” visibility (80%). Sharpness values of zero and contrast values of 1200 also demonstrated high frequencies of “good” visibility. Overlap analysis resulted in an average mean distance of 0.295 mm and a standard deviation of 0.307 mm across all patients’ sides. The study revealed that a slice thickness of 0.25 mm, zero sharpness value, and higher contrast value of 1200 improved the visibility and accuracy of IAC segmentation in CBCT scans. The individual patient’s characteristics, such as anatomical variations, decreased bone density, and absence of canal walls cortication, should be considered when using these parameters.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Slice Thickness, Sharpness, and Contrast Adjustments on Inferior Alveolar Canal Segmentation on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scans: A Retrospective Study

Issa,

Riad,

Olszewski

et al. 2023

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most recent, consecutive 50 articles containing “inferior alveolar canal” or “inferior alveolar nerve canal” were included (defined as the IAC/IANC group) (Adibi, Shahidi, Nikanjam, Paknahad, & Ranjbar, 2017; Afsa & Rahmati, 2017; Al‐Ekrish et al, 2018; Al‐Ekrish et al, 2020; Ali, Mosleh, & Shawky, 2018; Aljarbou, Aldosimani, Althumairy, Alhezam, & Aldawsari, 2019; Arbel et al, 2019; Atef & Mounir, 2018; Česaitienė, Česaitis, Junevičius, & Venskutonis, 2017; Y. Chen, Liu, Pei, Liu, & Pan, 2018; Clark, Barbu, Lorean, Mijiritsky, & Levin, 2017; Demirel & Akbulut, 2020; Dutra et al, 2019; Elkhateeb & Awad, 2018; Ghai & Choudhury, 2018; Goller Bulut & Köse, 2018; Gumusok, Alkurt, Museyibov, & Ucok, 2016; He, Wang, Hu, & Liu, 2019; Ishii, Abe, Moro, Yokomizo, & Kobayashi, 2017; Kablan, Abu‐Sobeh, Lorean, & Levin, 2020; Khojastepour, Khaghaninejad, Hasanshahi, Forghani, & Ahrari, 2019; Kubota, Imai, Nakazawa, & Uzawa, 2020; S. Lee, Lee, Kim, & Nam, 2019; Liu, Sidell, Huon, & Torre, 2018; Luangchana, Pornprasertsuk‐Damrongsri, Kitisubkanchana, & Wongchuensoontorn, 2019; Mortazavi, Baharvand, & Rezaeifar, 2018; Mortazavi, Baharvand, Safi, & Behnaz, 2019; Mortazavi, Baharvand, Safi, Dalaie, et al, 2019; Patil, Pai, Vineetha, Rajagopal, & Dkhar, 2019; Patrick, Birur, Gurushanth, Raghavan, & Gurudath, 2017; Pour, Sedaghati, & Shamshiri, 2020; Prakash et al, 2018; Qi et al, 2019; Rytkönen & Ventä, 2018; Saha, Kedarnath, & Singh, 2019; Şahin, Odabaşı, Demiralp, Kurşun‐Çakmak, & Aliyev, 2019; Sharifi, Beshkar, Mobayeni, & Hasheminasab, 2018; Shokry et al, 2019; Sirin, Yildirimturk, Horasan, & Guven, 2020; Tabrizi et al, 2019; Tachinami, Tomihara, Fujiwara, Nakamori, & Noguchi, 2017; Tudtiam et al, 2019; Uchida, Motoyoshi, Namura, & Shimizu, 2017; Uzun, Sumer, & Sumer,…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mandibular canal vs. inferior alveolar canal: Evidence‐based terminology analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The mandibular canal, as it was formerly named in Terminologia Anatomica (TA), has also been called the inferior alveolar (nerve) canal in many scientific publications. This study was conducted to investigate how these terms have been understood in different regions and different areas of expertise and to discuss the appropriate future application of the term “mandibular canal.” Methods A literature search was conducted using PubMed, and articles using different terms for this structure were classified into two groups, inferior alveolar canal/inferior alveolar nerve canal (IAC/IANC) and the mandibular canal (MC). The 50 most recent articles in each group were included. Publication year, journal title, country of the first author, and affiliation of all authors were recorded in both groups for all 100 articles. Results There was a significant difference between the IAC/IANC and MC groups in the numbers of anatomy journals, other journals, and anatomy affiliations. Turkey published most frequently with a total of 15 articles, followed by Iran with 10 articles, and China/India/United States with seven each. When the six countries of the first author that had three or more publications in each group were compared, only Turkey appeared in both groups; otherwise, different countries were in the two groups. Conclusions Based on the results of this analysis, and considering that the tentative new term “inferior alveolar foramen” is used in the latest TA, we suggest that the mandibular canal should be renamed the “inferior alveolar canal.”

show abstract

Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography Performance at Different Voxel Sizes in the Evaluation of Mandibular Canal – An In vitro Study

Joy

Kannan

Lakshmi

et al. 2022

J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of Resolution and Bit Depth on Inferior Alveolar Canal Visualization on Exported Mandibular Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Images

Cited by 3 publications

References 22 publications

The Influence of Slice Thickness, Sharpness, and Contrast Adjustments on Inferior Alveolar Canal Segmentation on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scans: A Retrospective Study

The Influence of Slice Thickness, Sharpness, and Contrast Adjustments on Inferior Alveolar Canal Segmentation on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scans: A Retrospective Study

Mandibular canal vs. inferior alveolar canal: Evidence‐based terminology analysis

Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography Performance at Different Voxel Sizes in the Evaluation of Mandibular Canal – An In vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About