K Vallaeys1,2,3, A Kacem2,4,5, H Legoux1,3, M Le Tenier1,3, C Hamitouche2,4, R Arbab-Chirani1,2,3. 1. 1 UFR d'Odontologie, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest, France. 2. 2 Laboratoire de Traitement de I'Information Médicale, LaTim-Inserm UMR 1101, Brest, France. 3. 3 Service d'Odontologie, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire Brest, France. 4. 4 Départment Image et Traitement de I'Information, Telecom Bretagne, Brest, France. 5. 5 Institut National des Sciences Appliquées et de Technologies de Tunis, INSAT, Tunis, Tunisia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate the reliability of a semi-automatic segmentation tool for dento-maxillary osteolytic image analysis compared with manually defined segmentation in CBCT scans. METHODS: Five CBCT scans were selected from patients for whom periapical radiolucency images were available. All images were obtained using a ProMax® 3D Mid Planmeca (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland) and were acquired with 200-μm voxel size. Two clinicians performed the manual segmentations. Four operators applied three different semi-automatic procedures. The volumes of the lesions were measured. An analysis of dispersion was made for each procedure and each case. An ANOVA was used to evaluate the operator effect. Non-paired t-tests were used to compare semi-automatic procedures with the manual procedure. Statistical significance was set at α = 0.01. RESULTS: The coefficients of variation for the manual procedure were 2.5-3.5% on average. There was no statistical difference between the two operators. The results of manual procedures can be used as a reference. For the semi-automatic procedures, the dispersion around the mean can be elevated depending on the operator and case. ANOVA revealed significant differences between the operators for the three techniques according to cases. CONCLUSIONS: Region-based segmentation was only comparable with the manual procedure for delineating a circumscribed osteolytic dento-maxillary lesion. The semi-automatic segmentations tested are interesting but are limited to complex surface structures. A methodology that combines the strengths of both methods could be of interest and should be tested. The improvement in the image analysis that is possible through the segmentation procedure and CBCT image quality could be of value.
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate the reliability of a semi-automatic segmentation tool for dento-maxillary osteolytic image analysis compared with manually defined segmentation in CBCT scans. METHODS: Five CBCT scans were selected from patients for whom periapical radiolucency images were available. All images were obtained using a ProMax® 3D Mid Planmeca (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland) and were acquired with 200-μm voxel size. Two clinicians performed the manual segmentations. Four operators applied three different semi-automatic procedures. The volumes of the lesions were measured. An analysis of dispersion was made for each procedure and each case. An ANOVA was used to evaluate the operator effect. Non-paired t-tests were used to compare semi-automatic procedures with the manual procedure. Statistical significance was set at α = 0.01. RESULTS: The coefficients of variation for the manual procedure were 2.5-3.5% on average. There was no statistical difference between the two operators. The results of manual procedures can be used as a reference. For the semi-automatic procedures, the dispersion around the mean can be elevated depending on the operator and case. ANOVA revealed significant differences between the operators for the three techniques according to cases. CONCLUSIONS: Region-based segmentation was only comparable with the manual procedure for delineating a circumscribed osteolytic dento-maxillary lesion. The semi-automatic segmentations tested are interesting but are limited to complex surface structures. A methodology that combines the strengths of both methods could be of interest and should be tested. The improvement in the image analysis that is possible through the segmentation procedure and CBCT image quality could be of value.
Authors: Philipp Pohlenz; Marco Blessmann; Felix Blake; Sven Heinrich; Rainer Schmelzle; Max Heiland Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2006-09-26
Authors: Paul A Yushkevich; Joseph Piven; Heather Cody Hazlett; Rachel Gimpel Smith; Sean Ho; James C Gee; Guido Gerig Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: John B Ludlow; William Stewart Laster; Meit See; L'Tanya J Bailey; H Garland Hershey Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2006-08-04
Authors: Carlos Estrela; Mike Reis Bueno; Bruno Correa Azevedo; José Ribamar Azevedo; Jesus Djalma Pécora Journal: J Endod Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: Bassam Hassan; Paulo Couto Souza; Reinhilde Jacobs; Soraya de Azambuja Berti; Paul van der Stelt Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Martin Kauke; Ali-Farid Safi; Matthias Kreppel; Andrea Grandoch; Hans-Joachim Nickenig; Joachim E Zöller; Timo Dreiseidler Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: D Wu; J F Griffith; S H M Lam; P Wong; J Yue; L Shi; E K Li; I T Cheng; T K Li; V W Hung; L Qin; L-S Tam Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Christoph Sacher; Daniel Holzinger; Paul Grogger; Florian Wagner; Gregor Sperl; Rudolf Seemann Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 3.573