Literature DB >> 27844482

Conditions and calibration to obtain comparable grey values between different clinical cone beam computed tomography scanners.

Gregory M England1, Eun-Sang Moon1, Jordan Roth1, Toru Deguchi1, Allen R Firestone1, F Michael Beck2, Do-Gyoon Kim1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the present study was to examine the grey value parameters and their magnitudes produced by CBCT and whether they are influenced by different scanners with various scanning conditions.
METHODS: An ATOM Max dental and diagnostic artificial head was scanned by two CBCT scanners (Planmeca and iCAT). Under full field of view with normal dose and ultralow-dose (ULD) conditions, the Planmeca scanner was examined for three scanning resolutions (200, 400, and 600 micron voxel sizes) and the iCAT scanner was tested for four scanning resolutions (200, 250, 300 and 400 micron voxel sizes). After 9 weeks, the artificial head was scanned again by the Planmeca scanner with the same scanning conditions. In addition, two hydroxyapatite phantoms (1220 and 1540 mg cm-3) were adhered on the artificial head and scanned using normal and ULD scanning conditions of 400 micron voxel size with both scanners. The grey value histogram of each region, which is proportional to the bone mineral density (BMD) histogram, was utilized to determine grey value distribution parameters and compare scanners (ANOVA, p < 0.05).
RESULTS: The different scanning conditions and the bilateral locations of the artificial head did not have significant effects on measurements of the grey value parameters (p > 0.436) with excellent repeatability. However, the iCAT scanner produced significantly different grey values from the Planmeca scanner (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: CBCT can assess BMD, while calibration of absolute measures is necessary to obtain comparable values between different scanners that are currently used to assess oral bone quantity and quality.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CT imaging; clinical assessment; diagnosis; imaging introduction; radiology

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27844482      PMCID: PMC5595016          DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20160322

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol        ISSN: 0250-832X            Impact factor:   2.419


  28 in total

1.  Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists consensus report.

Authors:  Erika Benavides; Hector F Rios; Scott D Ganz; Chang-Hyeon An; Randolph Resnik; Gayle Tieszen Reardon; Steven J Feldman; James K Mah; David Hatcher; Myung-Jin Kim; Dong-Seok Sohn; Ady Palti; Morton L Perel; Kenneth W M Judy; Carl E Misch; Hom-Lay Wang
Journal:  Implant Dent       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 2.454

2.  Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice.

Authors:  William C Scarfe; Allan G Farman; Predag Sukovic
Journal:  J Can Dent Assoc       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.316

3.  Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography.

Authors:  Roberto Molteni
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol       Date:  2013-07

4.  What is cone-beam CT and how does it work?

Authors:  William C Scarfe; Allan G Farman
Journal:  Dent Clin North Am       Date:  2008-10

Review 5.  Artefacts in CBCT: a review.

Authors:  R Schulze; U Heil; D Gross; D D Bruellmann; E Dranischnikow; U Schwanecke; E Schoemer
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 2.419

6.  Miniscrew stability evaluated with computerized tomography scanning.

Authors:  Jung-Yul Cha; Jae-Kyoung Kil; Tae-Min Yoon; Chung-Ju Hwang
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.650

Review 7.  Noninvasive assessment of bone mineral and structure: state of the art.

Authors:  H K Genant; K Engelke; T Fuerst; C C Glüer; S Grampp; S T Harris; M Jergas; T Lang; Y Lu; S Majumdar; A Mathur; M Takada
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 6.741

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

Authors:  A Parsa; N Ibrahim; B Hassan; A Motroni; P van der Stelt; D Wismeijer
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 2.419

9.  Comparison of micro-CT and cone beam CT-based assessments for relative difference of grey level distribution in a human mandible.

Authors:  T T Taylor; S I Gans; E M Jones; A R Firestone; W M Johnston; D-G Kim
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2012-09-20       Impact factor: 2.419

Review 10.  Bone mineralization density distribution in health and disease.

Authors:  P Roschger; E P Paschalis; P Fratzl; K Klaushofer
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2007-11-12       Impact factor: 4.398

View more
  3 in total

1.  Influence of dental implantation on bone mineral density distribution: a pilot study.

Authors:  Damian Jae-Whan Lee; Eun-Sang Moon; Kenneth Stephen; Jie Liu; Do-Gyoon Kim
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 1.989

2.  Evaluation of soft tissues simulant materials in cone beam computed tomography.

Authors:  Priscila A Lopes; Gustavo M Santaella; Carlos Augusto S Lima; Karla de Faria Vasconcelos; Francisco C Groppo
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2018-07-20       Impact factor: 2.419

3.  Gray value measurement for the evaluation of local alveolar bone density around impacted maxillary canine teeth using cone beam computed tomography.

Authors:  C Köseoğlu Seçgin; H Karslıoğlu; M-Ö Özemre; K Orhan
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2021-09-01
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.