2008
DOI: 10.1121/1.2884083
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tissue mimicking materials for dental ultrasound

Abstract: While acoustic tissue mimicking materials have been explored for a variety of soft and hard biological tissues, no dental hard tissue mimicking materials have been characterized. Tooth phantoms are necessary to better understand acoustic phenomenology within the tooth environment and to accelerate the advancement of dental ultrasound imaging systems. In this study, soda lime glass and dental composite were explored as surrogates for human enamel and dentin, respectively, in terms of compressional velocity, att… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The speed of sound was 1549.8±3.8 m/s (U=6.7), which was consistent with the Mast's data, 1547 m/s. According to Mast , the attenuation coefficient of muscle tissue is 1.09 dB / cm MHz, while various values such as 1.1 dB /cm MHz have been reported in the literature (21). These figures are similar to the attenuation coefficient we measured at the end of the investigation, 1.14±0.8 dB / cm MHz (U =0.55).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The speed of sound was 1549.8±3.8 m/s (U=6.7), which was consistent with the Mast's data, 1547 m/s. According to Mast , the attenuation coefficient of muscle tissue is 1.09 dB / cm MHz, while various values such as 1.1 dB /cm MHz have been reported in the literature (21). These figures are similar to the attenuation coefficient we measured at the end of the investigation, 1.14±0.8 dB / cm MHz (U =0.55).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…, John , Singh et al . ). This variation may be due to anisotropy, age, type and location of dentine (Lees & Rollins , Kinney et al .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Dye and tracer penetration tests, followed by microscopic evaluation are destructive imaging techniques that require specimen sectioning and preparation 10–12 . On the other hand, ultrasound imaging is a nondestructive technique that relies on the penetration of sound waves through a matter, revealing the deep internal structures noninvasively 13 . However, the increased imaging depth will decrease its resolution, which will limit its usefulness in the dental field.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Fourier domain system process series of raw A‐scans into depth information to form a single greyscale B‐scan data instantly. The main advantage of this system is that it provides tissue morphology and optical biopsy in real time and in contactless mode, using non‐ionising radiation at higher resolution, unlike magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasounds 13,20 …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%