Linear measurement accuracy of dental CT images obtained by 64-slice multidetector row CT: The effects of mandibular positioning and pitch factor at CT scanning

Implant Dentistry

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 496-501

  Kamiyama, Yosuke ^a   Nakamura, Shin ^a   Abe, Tatsuhiko ^a   Munakata, Motohiro ^a   Nomura, Yoshikazu ^a   Watanabe, Hiroshi ^a   Akiyama, Masako ^a   Kurabayashi, Toru ^a  

^a TOKYO MEDICAL AND DENTAL UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

dental CT; dental implant; linear measurement; multidetector CT

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; GUTTA PERCHA;

ANATOMY; ARTICLE; CEPHALOMETRY; FIDUCIAL MARKER; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; JAW; MANDIBLE; METHODOLOGY; MICRO-COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY; STATISTICS; TOOTH ARCH; TOOTH CROWN;

ALVEOLAR PROCESS; ANATOMY, CROSS-SECTIONAL; CEPHALOMETRY; CONTRAST MEDIA; DENTAL ARCH; FIDUCIAL MARKERS; GUTTA-PERCHA; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MANDIBLE; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; TOOTH CROWN; X-RAY MICROTOMOGRAPHY;

EID: 84870242790     PISSN: 10566163     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3182703387     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bou Serhal C, van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M, et al. Localization of the man-dibular canal using conventional spiral tomography: A human cadaver study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001;12:230-236.
2. Schwarz MS, Rothman SLG, Rhodes ML, et al. Computed tomography: Part I. Preoperative assessment of the mandible for endosseous implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1987;2:137-141.
3. Saavedra-Abril JA, Balhen-Martin C, Zaragoza-Velasco K, et al. Dental multi-section CT for the placement of oral implants: Technique and applications. Radiographics. 2010;30:1975-1991.
4. Abrahams JJ. Anatomy of the jaw revisited with a dental CT software program. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1993; 14:979-990.
5. Choi SC, Ann CH, Choi HM, et al. Accuracy of reformatted CT image for measuring the pre-implant site: Analysis of the image distortion related to the gantry angle change. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002;31:273-277.
6. Naitoh M, Katsumata A, Nohara E, et al. Measurement accuracy of reconstructed 2-D images obtained by multi-slice helical computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15:570-574.
7. Sforza NM, Franchini F, Lamma A, et al. Accuracy of computerized tomography for the evaluation of mandibular sites prior to implant placement. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2007; 27:589-595.
8. Kim KD, Jeong HG, Choi SH, et al. Effect of mandibular positioning on preim-plant site measurement of the mandible in reformatted CT. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003;23:177-183.
9. Suomalainen A, Vehmas T, Kortesniemi M, et al. Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37:10-17.
10. Gavrielides MA, Kinnard LM, Myers KJ, et al. Noncalcified lung nodules: Volumetric assessment with thoracic CT. Radiology. 2009;251:26-37.
11. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, et al. G power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175-191.
12. Kohavi D, Bar-Ziv J, Marmary Y. Effect of axial plane deviation on cross-sectional height in reformatted computed tomography of the mandible. Dento-maxillofac Radiol. 1997;26:189-191.
13. Dantas JA, Filho AM, Campos PSF. Computed tomography for dental implants: The influence of the gantry angle and mandibular positioning on the bone height and width. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005;34:9-15.
14. Wittenverg G, Schindler R, Trusen A, et al. Spiral CT: In vitro measurement of stenoses. In: Pokieser H, Lechner G, eds. Advances in CT 3. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1994:129-135.
15. Begemann P, Stevendaal U, Koester R, et al. Evaluation of the influence of acquisition and reconstruction parameters for 16-row multidetector CT on coronary calcium scoring using a stationary and dynamic cadiac pantom. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1985-1994.
16. Way WT, Chan HP, Sahiner B, et al. Effect of CT scanning parameters on volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules by 3D active contour segmentation: A phantom study. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:1295-1312.
17. Kyriakou Y, Kachelriess M, Knaup M, et al. Impact of the z-flying focal spot on resolution and artifact behavior for a 64-slice spiral CT scanner. Eur Radiol. 2006; 16:1206-1215.
18. McCollough CH, Zink FE. Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system. Med Phys. 1999;26:2223-2230.
19. Al-Ekrish AA, Ekram M. A comparative study of the accuracy and reliability of multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in the assessment of dental implant site dimensions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40:67-75.
20. Peker I, Alkurt MT, Mihcioglu T. The use of 3 different imaging methods for the localization of the mandibular canal in dental implant planning. Int J Oral Max-illofac Implants. 2008;23:463-470.
21. Fatemitabar SA, Nikgoo A. Multichannel computed tomography versus cone-beam computed tomography: Linear accuracy of in vitro measurements of the maxilla for implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:499-505.
22. Naitoh M, Katsumata A, Mitsuya S, et al. Measurement of mandibles with microfocus x-ray computerized tomography and compact computerized tomography for dental use. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19:239-246.
23. Kamburoglu K, Kurt H, Kolsuz E, et al. Occlusal caries depth measurement obtained by five different imaging modalities. J Digit Imaging. 2011;24:804-813.
24. Benavides E, Rios HF, Ganz SD, et al. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: The International Congress of Oral Implantologists consensus report. Implant Dent. 2012;21:78-86.
25. Mulkens TH, Broers C, Fieuws S, et al. Comparison of effective doses for low-dose MDCT and radiographic examination of sinuses in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1611-1618.