Three-dimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images

Lagravère, Manuel O.; Carey, Jason P.; Toogood, Roger; Major, Paul W.

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.08.024

Cited by 185 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…12 Several comparative studies confirmed the reliability and high accuracy of 3D CT for quantitative and qualitative analyses [13][14][15] and concluded that CT is a valuable diagnostic supplement to subjective bone density evaluation. [16][17][18] Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is preferred in dentistry as a result of the lower radiation dose it affords compared to that required in standard CT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Hounsfield Units: A new indicator showing maxillary resistance in rapid maxillary expansion cases?

Acar

Motro

Erverdi

2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine if density measurements of several maxillary regions in Hounsfield Units (HU) and outcomes of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) are correlated. Is correlation powerful enough to give us direct information about maxillary resistance to RME? Materials and Methods: Twenty-two computed tomographic (CT) scans (14 years) are used in this archive study. Two CT records were collected, one before RME (T 1 ) and one after 3 months of retention period (T 2 ). Maxillary measurements were made using dental and skeletal landmarks in first molar and first premolar slides to measure the effects of RME. Density of midpalatal suture (MPSD) and segments of maxillary bone is measured in HU at T 1 . Correlation analysis was conducted between density measurements and maxillary variables. Regression analysis was then performed for variables that showed positive correlation. Results: There was no correlation between density and skeletal measurements. Intermolar angle (ImA) in molar slice showed statistically significant correlation with density measurements. The ImA variable showed the highest correlation with MPSD in frontal section (r 5 0.669, P , .01). Conclusions: There is correlation of 32.1-43.3% between density measurements and ImA increase. Our density measurements explain a certain percentage of ImA increase, but density is not the only and definitive indicator of changes after RME. (Angle Orthod. 2015;85:109-116.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Hounsfield Units: A new indicator showing maxillary resistance in rapid maxillary expansion cases?

Acar

Motro

Erverdi

2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…18 For accurate 3D representations of the craniofacial complex, reconstructed 3D images were used in this study. All DICOM data were reconstructed by Mimics 10.0 (Materialise NV).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mandibular asymmetry in unilateral and bilateral posterior crossbite patients using cone-beam computed tomography

Veli¹,

Uysal²,

Özer³

et al. 2011

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To test the hypotheses that (1) there is no difference in mandibular asymmetry between the crossbite and normal side in a unilateral crossbite group (UCG) and between the right and left sides in a bilateral crossbite group (BCG) and a control group (CG); and (2) there is no significant difference in mandibular asymmetry among crossbite groups and control group. Materials and Methods: The cone-beam computed tomography scans of three groups were studied: (1) 15 patients (6 male, 9 female; mean age: 13.51 6 2.03 years) with unilateral posterior crossbite; (2) 15 patients (8 male, 7 female; mean age: 13.36 6 2.12 years) with bilateral posterior crossbite; and (3) 15 patients (8 male, 7 female; mean age: 13.46 6 1.53 years) as a control group. Fourteen parameters (eight linear, three surface, and three volumetric) were measured. Side comparisons were analyzed with paired samples t-test, and for the intergroup comparison, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey tests were used at the P , .05 level. Results: According to side comparisons, no statistically significant difference was found in the UCG. There were statistically significant differences in hemimandibular (P 5 .008) and ramal (P 5 .004) volumes for the BCG and in ramal height (P 5 .024) and body length (P 5 .021) for the CG. Intergroup comparisons revealed significant differences in hemimandibular (P 5 .002) and body volume (P , .001) for the normal side of the UCG and left sides of the other groups, and in angular unit length (P 5 .025) and condylar width (P 5 .007) for the crossbite side of the UCG and the right sides of the other groups. Conclusions: Contrary to UCG, CG and BCG were found to have side-specific asymmetry. Skeletal components of the mandible have significant asymmetry among the crossbite groups and the CG. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:966-974.)

show abstract

“…To date, multiple ex vivo studies have attempted to establish the ability of CBCT images to accurately reproduce the geometric dimensions of the maxillodental structures and the mandible. [22][23][24][25] A relatively low patient dose for dedicated dentomaxillofacial scans is a potentially attractive feature of CBCT imaging. The dosing characteristics of dentomaxillofacial scanners were discussed in Part 1 of this series.…”

Section: Dentomaxillofacial Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…29,31,32 Several studies have described the 3D geometric accuracy of CBCT imaging in the maxillodental and mandibular regions as well. [22][23][24][25] Examples of CBCT imaging studies for implant planning and visualization of the mandibular canal are presented in Figures 1 and 2 respectively.…”

Section: Implantologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Conebeam CT of the Head and Neck, Part 2: Clinical Applications

Miracle¹,

Mukherji²

2009

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol

293

205

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY: Conebeam x-ray CT (CBCT) is being increasingly used for point-of-service head and neck and dentomaxillofacial imaging. This technique provides relatively high isotropic spatial resolution of osseous structures with a reduced radiation dose compared with conventional CT scans. In this second installment in a 2-part review, the clinical applications in the dentomaxillofacial and head and neck regions will be explored, with particular emphasis on diagnostic imaging of the sinuses, temporal bone, and craniofacial structures. Several controversies surrounding the emergence of CBCT technology will also be addressed. C onebeam CT (CBCT) is an advancement in CT imagingthat has begun to emerge as a potentially low-dose crosssectional technique for visualizing bony structures in the head and neck. The physical principles, image quality parameters, and technical limitations relevant to CBCT imaging were discussed in Part 1 of this 2-part series. The second part presented here will highlight the evidence related to CBCT applications in head and neck as well as dentomaxillofacial imaging. Controversial aspects of this technology will also be addressed, including limitations in image quality and its often officebased operational model.CBCT was first adapted for potential clinical use in 1982 at the Mayo Clinic Biodynamics Research Laboratory. 1 Initial interest focused primarily on applications in angiography in which soft-tissue resolution could be sacrificed in favor of high temporal and spatial-resolving capabilities. Since that time, several CBCT systems have been developed for use both in the interventional suite and for general applications in CT angiography. 2,3 Exploration of CBCT technologies for use in radiation therapy guidance began in 1992, 4,5 followed by integration of the first CBCT imaging system into the gantry of a linear accelerator in 1999. 6 The first CBCT system became commercially available for dentomaxillofacial imaging in 2001 (NewTom QR DVT 9000; Quantitative Radiology, Verona, Italy). Comparatively low dosing requirements and a relatively compact design have also led to intense interest in surgical planning and intraoperative CBCT applications, particularly in the head and neck but also in spinal, thoracic, abdominal, and orthopedic procedures. [7][8][9][10][11] Diagnostic applications in CT mammography and head and neck imaging are also under evaluation. 12-14 The technical and clinical considerations pertaining to CBCT imaging in many of these applications have been the subjects of several recent reviews. [15][16][17][18][19] The recent review by Dörfler et al 16 of the neurointerventional applications of CBCT is of particular interest to the field of neuroradiology.The discussion below will focus on the diagnostic and treatment-planning applications of CBCT in dentomaxillofacial and head and neck imaging. Commercially available CBCT systems for dentomaxillofacial imaging include the CB MercuRay and CB Throne (Hitachi Medical, Kashiwi-shi, Chiba-ken, Japan), 3D Accuitomo products (J. Mor...

show abstract

Three-dimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images

Cited by 185 publications

References 13 publications

Hounsfield Units: A new indicator showing maxillary resistance in rapid maxillary expansion cases?

Hounsfield Units: A new indicator showing maxillary resistance in rapid maxillary expansion cases?

Mandibular asymmetry in unilateral and bilateral posterior crossbite patients using cone-beam computed tomography

Conebeam CT of the Head and Neck, Part 2: Clinical Applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About