The effect of scan parameters on cone beam CT trabecular bone microstructural measurements of the human mandible

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 42, Issue 10, 2013, Pages

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Cone beam CT; Dagnostic imaging; Rabecular bone; Snning parameter

Indexed keywords

CADAVER; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; JAPAN; MANDIBLE; ROTATION; SOFTWARE; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; ARTICLE; EDENTULOUSNESS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; ULTRASTRUCTURE;

CADAVER; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; JAPAN; MANDIBLE; ROTATION; SOFTWARE; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; JAW, EDENTULOUS, PARTIALLY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT;

EID: 84891885376     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20130206     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Song YD, Jun SH, Kwon JJ. Correlation between bone quality evaluated by cone-beam computerized tomography and implant primary stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24: 59-64.
2. Patcas R,Markic G,Müller L, Ullrich O, Peltomäki T, Kellenberger CJ, et al. Accuracy of linear intraoral measurements using cone beam CT and multidetector CT: a tale of two CTs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 637-644. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/21152480
3. Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Loubele M, Schutyser F, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. State-of-the-art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Investig 2006; 10: 1-7. doi: 10.1007/s00784-005- 0031-2
4. Kobayashi K, Shimoda S, Nakagawa Y, Yamamoto A. Accuracy in measurement of distance using limited cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19: 228-231.
5. Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Influence of cone beam CT scanning parameters on grey value measurements at implant site. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 79884780. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/79884780
6. González-García R, Monje F. The reliability of cone-beam computed tomography to assess bone density at dental implant recipient sites: a histomorphometric analysis by micro-CT. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 24: 871-879. doi: 10.1111/j.1600- 0501.2011.02390.x
7. Fanuscu MI, Chang TL. Three-dimensional morphometric analysis of human cadaver bone: microstructural data from maxilla and mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 213-218.
8. Dreiseidler T, Neugebauer J, Ritter L, Lingohr T, Rothamel D, Mischkowski RA, et al. Accuracy of a newly developed integrated system for dental implant planning. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 1191-1199. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501. 2009.01764.x
9. Felsenberg D, Boonen S. The bone quality framework: determinants of bone strength and their interrelationships, and implications for osteoporosis management. Clin Ther 2005; 27: 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2004.12.020
10. De Oliveira RC, Leles CR, Lindh C, Ribeiro-Rotta RF. Bone tissue microarchitectural characteristics at dental implant sites. Part 1: identification of clinical-related parameters. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 981-986. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02243.x
11. Spin-Neto R, Marcantonio E, Jr, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Exploring CBCT-based DICOM files. A systematic review on the properties of images used to evaluate maxillofacial bone grafts. J Digit Imaging 2011; 24: 959-966. doi: 10.1007/s10278-011-9377-y
12. Hassan B, Couto Souza P, Jacobs R, de Azambuja Berti S, van der Stelt P. Influence of scanning and reconstruction parameters on quality of three-dimensional surface models of the dental arches from cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig 2010; 14: 303-310. doi: 10.1007/s00784-009-0291-3
13. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, Schoemer E. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 265-273. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/30642039
14. Araki K, Okano T. The effect of surrounding conditions on pixel value of cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 24: 862-865. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02373.x
15. Loubele M, Maes F, Schutyser F, Marchal G, Jacobs R, Suetens P. Assessment of bone segmentation quality of cone-beam CT versus multislice spiral CT: a pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 102: 225-234. doi: 10.1016/j. tripleo.2005.10.039
16. Katsumata A, Hirukawa A, Noujeim M, Okumura S, Naitoh M, Fujishita M, et al. Image artifact in dental cone-beam CT. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 101: 652-657. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.07.027
17. Bechara B, McMahan CA, Geha H, Noujeim M. Evaluation of a cone beam CT artefact reduction algorithm. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 422-428. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/43691321
18. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am 2008; 52: 707-730. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005
19. Corpas LS, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, Huang Y, Naert I, Duyck J. Peri-implant bone tissue assessment by comparing the outcome of intra-oral radiograph and cone beam computed tomography analyses to the histological standard. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22: 492-499. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02029.x
20. Ibrahim N, Parsa A, Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Diagnostic imaging of trabecular bone microstructure for oral implants: a literature review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20120075. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20120075
21. Ibrahim N, Parsa A, Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Aartman IH, Wismeijer D. Accuracy of trabecular bone microstructural measurement at planned dental implant sites using cone-beam CT datasets. Clin Oral Implants Res Apr 2013. Epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1111/clr.12163.
22. Peyrin F, Salome M, Cloetens P, Laval-Jeantet AM, Ritman E, Rüegsegger P. Micro-CT examinations of trabecular bone samples at different resolutions: 14, 7 and 2 micron level. Technol Health Care 1998; 6: 391-401.
23. Verdelis K, Lukashova L, Atti E, Mayer-Kuckuk P, Peterson MG, Tetradis S, et al. MicroCT morphometry analysis of mouse cancellous bone: intra- and inter-system reproducibility. Bone 2011; 49: 580-587. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2011. 05.013
24. Kalender WA, Deak P, Kellermeier M, van Straten M, Vollmar SV. Application- and patient size-dependent optimization of x-ray spectra for CT. Med Phys 2009; 36: 993-1007.
25. Klink T, RegierM, van Stevendaal U, GrassM, Adam G, Begemann P. Accelerating image acquisition in 64-MDCT: the influence of scan parameters on image resolution and quality in a phantom study. Clin Imaging 2012; 36: 334-344. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2011.11.006
26. Gribel BF, Gribel MN, Frazäo DC, McNamara JA, Jr, Manzi FR. Accuracy and reliability of craniometric measurements on lateral cephalometry and 3D measurements on CBCT scans. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 26-35. doi: 10.2319/032210-166.1
27. Sheikhi M, Ghorbanizadeh S, Abdinian M, Goroohi H, Badrian H. Accuracy of linear measurements of galileos cone beam computed tomography in normal and different head positions. Int J Dent 2012; 2012: 214954. doi: 10.1155/2012/214954.
28. Tomasi C, Bressan E, Corazza B, Mazzoleni S, Stellini E, Lith A. Reliability and reproducibility of linear mandible measurements with the use of a cone-beam computed tomography and two object inclinations. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 244-250. doi:10.1259/dmfr/17432330
29. European Commission. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology: evidence-based guidelines. Radiation Protection Publication 172. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2012
30. Bechara B, McMahan CA, Moore WS, Noujeim M, Geha H, Teixeira FB. Contrast-to-noise ratio difference in small field of view cone beam computed tomography machines. J Oral Sci 2012; 54: 227-232.
31. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT) part I. on subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75: 265-269. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.042
32. Kothari M, Keaveny TM, Lin JC, Newitt DC, Genant HK, Majumdar S. Impact of spatial resolution on the prediction of trabecular architecture parameters. Bone 1998; 22: 437-443.
33. Bauman R, Scarfe W, Clark S, Morelli J, Scheetz J, Farman A. Ex vivo detection of mesiobuccal canals in maxillary molars using CBCT at four different isotropic voxel dimensions. Int Endod J 2011; 44: 752-758. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01882.x
34. Maret D, Telmon N, Peters OA, Lepage B, Treil J, Inglése JM, et al. Effect of voxel size on the accuracy of 3D reconstructions with cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 649-655. doi: 10.1259/dmf/81804525
35. Chappard D, Retailleau-Gaborit N, Legrand E, Baslé MF, Audran M. Comparison insight bone measurements by histomorphometry and microCT. J Bone Miner Res 2005; 20: 1177-1184. doi: 10.1359/JBMR.050205
36. Dreiseidler T, Tandon D, Kreppel M, Neugebauer J, Mischkowski RA, Zinser MJ, et al. CBCT device dependency on the transfer accuracy from computer-aided implantology procedures. Clin Oral Impl Res 2012; 23: 1089-1097. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02272.x
37. Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y, Denis K, Hassan B, Li L, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part II: on 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75: 270-274. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.04.016
38. Maes F, Vandermeulen D, Suetens P. Comparative evaluation of multiresolution optimization strategies for multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. Med Image Anal 1999; 3: 373-386.
39. Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Impact of voxel size variation on CBCT-based diagnostic outcome in dentistry: a systematic review. J Digit Imaging 2013; 26: 26813-26820. doi: 10.1007/s10278-012-9562-7.