2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2021.06.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of Voxel Size and Filter Application in Detecting Second Mesiobuccal Canals in Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Images

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0
5

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
8
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…For the purposes of the study, we performed an evaluation of CBCT images, taken with specific settings that allowed an adequate visualization of the root canal anatomy. The confirmation of the appropriateness of the settings and of the methods used derived from the recently published paper by Mouzinho–Machado et al [ 18 ]. In their research, the authors compared three different voxel sizes (0.08, 0.125, and 0.200 mm) in the scans of 40 maxillary first molars, 20 without MB2 and 20 with MB2.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…For the purposes of the study, we performed an evaluation of CBCT images, taken with specific settings that allowed an adequate visualization of the root canal anatomy. The confirmation of the appropriateness of the settings and of the methods used derived from the recently published paper by Mouzinho–Machado et al [ 18 ]. In their research, the authors compared three different voxel sizes (0.08, 0.125, and 0.200 mm) in the scans of 40 maxillary first molars, 20 without MB2 and 20 with MB2.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The effect of this parameter varies according to the study objectives whether related to the root or canal anatomy (or usually both), complexity of the configuration type and geometrics features (size and shape) of the root canals. Recent reports highlighted that a voxel size of 0.2 mm 3 and below is an appropriate resolution for assessing root canal anatomy in CBCT prevalence studies (Martins et al, 2019a(Martins et al, , 2020 which, up to now, could be a reasonable baseline for identification of root canal anatomy and appropriate comparisons between different anatomy studies; however, based on current advancements in CBCT imaging and the evolving evidence for the more accuracy of smaller voxel sizes (≤0.125 mm 3 ) compared to 0.2 mm 3 (Mouzinho- Machado et al, 2021), it seems that the optimal voxel size for future anatomy studies could be of a smaller value. FOV is another important parameter which influences the visualisation of the root canal system (Hassan et al, 2012).…”
Section: Cone Beam Computed Tomography (Cbct)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Generally speaking, a small voxel size in a CBCT protocol is often associated with better image quality and higher diagnostic accuracy [ 22 , 23 ], but requires more exposure time and consequently may increase the radiation exposure to the patient [ 24 ]. Previous scholars have evaluated the impact of voxel size on different diagnostic tasks, such as detection of root fractures, carious lesions, root resorption, periodontal defects, erosions in the temporomandibular joint, root canal variations, etc., and the results varied depending on the task and the CBCT systems used [ 21 , 25 – 28 ]. In regard to the diagnosis of root canal anatomy, Bauman et al [ 22 ] and Mouzinho-Machado et al [ 25 ] reported that a smaller voxel size increased the diagnostic accuracy of MB2 canals.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous scholars have evaluated the impact of voxel size on different diagnostic tasks, such as detection of root fractures, carious lesions, root resorption, periodontal defects, erosions in the temporomandibular joint, root canal variations, etc., and the results varied depending on the task and the CBCT systems used [ 21 , 25 – 28 ]. In regard to the diagnosis of root canal anatomy, Bauman et al [ 22 ] and Mouzinho-Machado et al [ 25 ] reported that a smaller voxel size increased the diagnostic accuracy of MB2 canals. While Vizzotto et al [ 23 ] reported that filling of the first mesio-buccal canal (MB1) reduced the second mesio-buccal canal (MB2) detection in the CBCT images of 300 and 250 μm voxel size, but not of 200 μm voxel size; for teeth with MB1 filling, the 200 μm voxel size was the most appropriate, whereas for those with no MB1 filling or after MB1 root canal filling removal, the 300 μm voxel size was adequate to achieve good diagnostic performance and lower radiation exposure.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%