Erratum: Correction to influence of exposure factors on the variability of CBCT voxel values: A phantom study (Dentomaxilloficial Radiology (2014) 43: 20149002 doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20140128);Influence of exposure factors on the variability of CBCT voxel values: A phantom study

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 43, Issue 6, 2014, Pages

  Oliveira, Matheus Lima ^a   Freitas, D Q ^a   Ambrosano, G M B ^a   Haiter Neto, F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Cone beam computed tomography; Densitometry; Photon absorptiometry

Indexed keywords

BUFFER; PHOSPHATE; POTASSIUM DERIVATIVE; POTASSIUM DIHYDROGEN PHOSPHATE;

ANATOMY; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; CHEMISTRY; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DENSITOMETRY; ELECTRICITY; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; METHODOLOGY; PHOTON ABSORPTIOMETRY; RADIATION DOSE; STATISTICS; TOOTH IMPLANT;

CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DENSITOMETRY; PHOTON ABSORPTIOMETRY;

ANATOMY, CROSS-SECTIONAL; ARTIFACTS; BUFFERS; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DENTAL IMPLANTS; ELECTRICITY; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; PHOSPHATES; POTASSIUM COMPOUNDS; RADIATION DOSAGE;

EID: 84907010595     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: 1476542X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20149002     Document Type: Erratum

References (19)

1. Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Bone quality evaluation at dental implant site using multislice CT, micro-CT, and cone beam CT. Clin Oral Implants Res Dec 2013. Epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1111/clr.12315
2. Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29(Suppl.) 55-77.
3. Oliveira ML, Tosoni GM, Lindsey DH, Mendoza K, Tetradis S, Mallya SM. Influence of anatomical location on CT numbers in cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013; 115: 558-64. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo. 2013.01.021
4. Molteni R. Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013; 116: 105-19. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2013.04.013
5. Scarfe WC, Li Z, Aboelmaaty W, Scott SA, Farman AG. Maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: essence, elements and steps to interpretation. Aust Dent J 2012; 57(Suppl. 1): 46-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01657.x
6. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 265-73. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/ 30642039
7. Sisniega A, Zbijewski W, Badal A, Kyprianou IS, Stayman JW, Vaquero JJ, et al. Monte Carlo study of the effects of system geometry and antiscatter grids on cone-beam CT scatter distributions. Med Phys 2013; 40: 051915. doi: 10.1118/1.4801895
8. Ozdemir F, Tozlu M, Germec Cakan D. Quantitative evaluation of alveolar cortical bone density in adults with different vertical facial types using cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod 2014; 44: 36-43. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2014.44.1.36
9. Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Pacifici A, Pacifici L, Barbato E. How accurate is CBCT in measuring bone density? A comparative CBCT-CT in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Jan 2013. Epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1111/cid.12027
10. Valiyaparambil JV, Yamany I, Ortiz D, Shafer DM, Pendrys D, Freilich M, et al. Bone quality evaluation: comparison of cone beam computed tomography and subjective surgical assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27: 1271-7.
11. Lagrave're MO, Fang Y, Carey J, Toogood RW, Packota GV, Major PW. Density conversion factor determined using a cone beam computed tomography unit NewTom QR-DVT 9000. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 407-9.
12. Mah P, Reeves T, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010; 39: 323-35.
13. Reeves TE, Mah P, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam CT: a clinical application. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 500-8. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/31640433
14. Gamba TO,OliveiraML, Flores IL,CruzAD, Almeida SM, Haiter- Neto F, et al. Influence of cone-beam computed tomography image artifacts on the determination of dental arch measurements. Angle Orthod 2014; 84: 274-8. doi: 10.2319/040313-255.1
15. Pauwels R, Stamatakis H, Bosmans H, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R, Horner K, et al. Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 94-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02382.x
16. Pauwels R, Nackaerts O, Bellaiche N, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A, et al. Variability of dental cone beam CT grey values for density estimations. Br J Radiol 2013; 86: 20120135. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20120135
17. Bryant JA, Drage NA, Richmond S. Study of the scan uniformity from an i-CAT cone beam computed tomography dental imaging system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 365-74. doi: 10.1259/ dmfr/13227258
18. 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: 420-5.
19. Hunter AK, McDavid WD. Characterization and correction of cupping effect artefacts in cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 217-23. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/19015946