Hui Chen1,2, Maureen van Eijnatten3, Jan Wolff3, Jan de Lange4, Paul F van der Stelt1, Frank Lobbezoo2, Ghizlane Aarab2. 1. 1 Department of Oral Radiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands. 2. 2 Department of Oral Kinesiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands. 3. 3 3D Innovation Lab, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery/Pathology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA) and VU University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands. 4. 4 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA) and Academic Medical Center (AMC), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and accuracy of three different imaging software packages for three-dimensional analysis of the upper airway using CBCT images. METHODS: To assess the reliability of the software packages, 15 NewTom 5G® (QR Systems, Verona, Italy) CBCT data sets were randomly and retrospectively selected. Two observers measured the volume, minimum cross-sectional area and the length of the upper airway using Amira® (Visage Imaging Inc., Carlsbad, CA), 3Diagnosys® (3diemme, Cantu, Italy) and OnDemand3D® (CyberMed, Seoul, Republic of Korea) software packages. The intra- and inter-observer reliability of the upper airway measurements were determined using intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland & Altman agreement tests. To assess the accuracy of the software packages, one NewTom 5G® CBCT data set was used to print a three-dimensional anthropomorphic phantom with known dimensions to be used as the "gold standard". This phantom was subsequently scanned using a NewTom 5G® scanner. Based on the CBCT data set of the phantom, one observer measured the volume, minimum cross-sectional area, and length of the upper airway using Amira®, 3Diagnosys®, and OnDemand3D®, and compared these measurements with the gold standard. RESULTS: The intra- and inter-observer reliability of the measurements of the upper airway using the different software packages were excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.75). There was excellent agreement between all three software packages in volume, minimum cross-sectional area and length measurements. All software packages underestimated the upper airway volume by -8.8% to -12.3%, the minimum cross-sectional area by -6.2% to -14.6%, and the length by -1.6% to -2.9%. CONCLUSIONS: All three software packages offered reliable volume, minimum cross-sectional area and length measurements of the upper airway. The length measurements of the upper airway were the most accurate results in all software packages. All software packages underestimated the upper airway dimensions of the anthropomorphic phantom.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and accuracy of three different imaging software packages for three-dimensional analysis of the upper airway using CBCT images. METHODS: To assess the reliability of the software packages, 15 NewTom 5G® (QR Systems, Verona, Italy) CBCT data sets were randomly and retrospectively selected. Two observers measured the volume, minimum cross-sectional area and the length of the upper airway using Amira® (Visage Imaging Inc., Carlsbad, CA), 3Diagnosys® (3diemme, Cantu, Italy) and OnDemand3D® (CyberMed, Seoul, Republic of Korea) software packages. The intra- and inter-observer reliability of the upper airway measurements were determined using intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland & Altman agreement tests. To assess the accuracy of the software packages, one NewTom 5G® CBCT data set was used to print a three-dimensional anthropomorphic phantom with known dimensions to be used as the "gold standard". This phantom was subsequently scanned using a NewTom 5G® scanner. Based on the CBCT data set of the phantom, one observer measured the volume, minimum cross-sectional area, and length of the upper airway using Amira®, 3Diagnosys®, and OnDemand3D®, and compared these measurements with the gold standard. RESULTS: The intra- and inter-observer reliability of the measurements of the upper airway using the different software packages were excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.75). There was excellent agreement between all three software packages in volume, minimum cross-sectional area and length measurements. All software packages underestimated the upper airway volume by -8.8% to -12.3%, the minimum cross-sectional area by -6.2% to -14.6%, and the length by -1.6% to -2.9%. CONCLUSIONS: All three software packages offered reliable volume, minimum cross-sectional area and length measurements of the upper airway. The length measurements of the upper airway were the most accurate results in all software packages. All software packages underestimated the upper airway dimensions of the anthropomorphic phantom.
Entities:
Keywords:
CBCT; phantom; reproducibility of result; software; upper airway
Authors: Martha S Linet; Thomas L Slovis; Donald L Miller; Ruth Kleinerman; Choonsik Lee; Preetha Rajaraman; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Dimitris Mitsouras; Peter Liacouras; Amir Imanzadeh; Andreas A Giannopoulos; Tianrun Cai; Kanako K Kumamaru; Elizabeth George; Nicole Wake; Edward J Caterson; Bohdan Pomahac; Vincent B Ho; Gerald T Grant; Frank J Rybicki Journal: Radiographics Date: 2015 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Azin Parsa; Norliza Ibrahim; Bassam Hassan; Paul van der Stelt; Daniel Wismeijer Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Karen Regina Siqueira de Souza; Paula Vanessa Pedron Oltramari-Navarro; Ricardo de Lima Navarro; Ana Cláudia de Castro Ferreira Conti; Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida Journal: Braz Oral Res Date: 2013 Jan-Feb
Authors: Alexandru Diaconu; Michael Boelstoft Holte; Paolo Maria Cattaneo; Else Marie Pinholt Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Chen Zhang; Robin Bruggink; Frank Baan; Ewald Bronkhorst; Thomas Maal; Hong He; Edwin M Ongkosuwito Journal: PeerJ Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 2.984