Influence of cone beam CT scanning parameters on grey value measurements at an implant site

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2013, Pages

  Parsa, A ^a   Ibrahim, N ^a   Hassan, B ^a   Motroni, A ^b   Der Van Stelt, P ^a   Wismeijer, D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b AMIRG AppliedMedical Imaging Research Group   (Italy)

Author keywords

Bone density; Cone beam CT; Grey values; Registration

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BONE DENSITY; CADAVER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; EDENTULOUSNESS; EQUIPMENT; FIDUCIAL MARKER; HUMAN; MANDIBLE; METHODOLOGY; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOGRAPHY; TOOTH IMPLANTATION;

ALGORITHMS; BONE DENSITY; CADAVER; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DENTAL IMPLANTATION, ENDOSSEOUS; FIDUCIAL MARKERS; HUMANS; JAW, EDENTULOUS, PARTIALLY; MANDIBLE; RADIATION DOSAGE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84875202930     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/79884780     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Isoda K, Ayukawa Y, Tsukiyama Y, Sogo M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. Relationship between the bone density estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and the primary stability of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 832-836.
2. Jaffin RA, Berman CL. The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis. J Periodontol 1991; 62: 2-4.
3. Herrmann I, Lekholm U, Holm S, Kultje C. Evaluation of patient and implant characteristics as potential prognostic factors for oral implant failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20: 220-230.
4. Turkyilmaz I, T?oz?um TF, Tumer C, Ozbek EN. Assessment of correlation between computerized tomography values of the bone, and maximum torque and resonance frequency values at dental implant placement. J Oral Rehabil 2006; 33: 881-888.
5. Ito K, Gomi Y, Sato S, Arai Y, Shinoda K. Clinical application of a new compact CT system to assess 3-D images for the preoperative treatment planning of implants in the posterior mandible. A case report. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12: 539-542.
6. Kau CH, Richmond S, Palomo JM, Hans MG. Threedimensional cone beam computerized tomography in orthodontics. J Orthod 2005; 32: 282-293.
7. Carrafiello G, Dizonno M, Colli V, Strocchi S, Pozzi Taubert S, Leonardi A, et al. Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. Radiol Med 2010; 115: 600-611.
8. White SC. Cone-beam imaging in dentistry. Health Phys 2008; 95: 628-637.
9. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 267-271.
10. Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, K?aser Y, Peltola J, Kortesniemi M. Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38: 367-378.
11. Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010; 39: 323-335.
12. Hassan B, Nijkamp P, Verheij H, Tairie J, Vink C, Stelt P van der, et al. Precision of identifying cephalometric landmarks with cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Eur J Orthod 2013; 35: 38-44. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjr050.
13. Naitoh M, Katsumata A, Mitsuya S, Kamemoto H, Ariji E. 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.
14. Lagrav́ere MO, Carey J, Toogood RW, Major PW. Threedimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 112-116.
15. Lou L, Lagravere MO, Compton S, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Accuracy of measurements and reliability of landmark identification with computed tomography (CT) techniques in the maxillofacial area: a systematic review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 104: 402-411.
16. Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Dus I, et al. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites.Quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20: 416-424.
17. Naitoh M, Hirukawa A, Katsumata A, Ariji E. Evaluation of voxel values in mandibular cancellous bone: relationship between cone-beam computed tomography and multislice helical computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 503-506.
18. Naitoh M, Hirukawa A, Katsumata A, Ariji E. Prospective study to estimate mandibular cancellous bone density using largevolume cone-beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21: 1309-1313.
19. Nomura Y, Watanabe H, Honda E, Kurabayashi T. Reliability of voxel values from cone-beam computed tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral density. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21: 558-562.
20. Lagrav́ere MO, Fang Y, Carey J, Toogood RW, Packota GV, Major PW. Density conversion factor determined using a conebeam computed tomography unit NewTom QR-DVT 9000. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 407-409.
21. Kau CH, Bozic M, English J, Lee R, Bussa H, Ellis RK. Conebeam computed tomography of the maxillofacial region - an update. Int JMed Robotics Comput Assist Surg 2009; 5: 366-380.
22. Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Yang J. Diagnostic validity (or acuity) of 2D CCD versus 3D CBCT-images for assessing periodontal breakdown. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 104: 395-401.
23. Hatcher DC. Operational principles for cone-beam computed tomography. J Am Dent Assoc 2010; 141(Suppl.3): 3S-6S.
24. Brown AA, Scarfe WC, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Linear accuracy of cone beam CT derived 3D images. Angle Orthod 2009; 79: 150-157.
25. Lofthag-Hansen S, Thilander-Klang A, Gr?ondahl K. Evaluation of subjective image quality in relation to diagnostic task for cone beam computed tomography with different fields of view. Eur J Radiol 2011; 80: 483-488.
26. Allan GF. Field of view. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 108: 477-478.
27. Schulze R, Heil U, Grob D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 265-273.
28. Araki K, Okano T. The effect of surrounding conditions on pixel value of cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011 Nov 17. Epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02373.x.
29. Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R. Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 873-879.
30. Maes F, Collignon A, Vandermeulen D, Marchal G, Suetens P. Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1997; 16: 187-198.
31. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am 2008; 52: 707-730.
32. Van Daatselaar AN, van der Stelt PF, Weenen J. Effect of number of projections on image quality of local CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 361-369.
33. Goldman LW. Principles of CT: radiation dose and image quality. J Nucl Med Technol 2007; 35: 213-225.
34. Loubele M, Jacobs R, Maes F, Denis K, White S, Coudyzer W, et al. Image quality vs radiation dose of four cone beam computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 309-318.
35. Hua Y, Nackaerts O, Duyck J, Maes F, Jacobs R. Bone quality assessment based on cone beam computed tomography imaging. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 767-771.
36. De Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen GRJ. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 38: 609-625.
37. Katsumata A, Hirukawa A, Okumura S, Naitoh M, Fujishita M, Ariji E, et al. Relationship between density variability and imaging volume size in cone-beam computerized tomographic scanning of the maxillofacial region: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107: 420-425.