| Literature DB >> 28708129 |
Laura Ferreira Pinheiro Nicolielo1, Jeroen Van Dessel1, Eman Shaheen1, Carolina Letelier1,2, Marina Codari3, Constantinus Politis1, Ivo Lambrichts4, Reinhilde Jacobs1,5.
Abstract
The main goal of this study was to introduce a novel three-dimensional procedure to objectively quantify both inner and outer condylar remodelling on preoperative multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Second, the reliability and accuracy of this condylar volume quantification method was assessed. The mandibles of 20 patients (11 female and 9 male) who underwent bimaxillary surgery were semi-automatically extracted from MSCT/CBCT scans and rendered in 3D. The resulting condyles were spatially matched by using an anatomical landmark-based registration procedure. A standardized sphere was created around each condyle, and the condylar bone volume within this selected region of interest was automatically calculated. To investigate the reproducibility of the method, inter- and intra-observer reliability was calculated for assessments made by two experienced radiologists twice five months apart in a set of ten randomly selected patients. To test the accuracy of the bone segmentation, the inner and outer bone structures of one dry mandible, scanned according to the clinical set-up, were compared with the gold standard, micro-CT. Thirty-eight condyles showed a significant (P<0.05) mean bone volume decrease of 26.4%±11.4% (502.9 mm3±268.1 mm3). No significant effects of side, sex or age were found. Good to excellent (ICC>0.6) intra- and inter-observer reliability was observed for both MSCT and CBCT. Moreover, the bone segmentation accuracy was less than one voxel (0.4 mm) for MSCT (0.3 mm±0.2 mm) and CBCT (0.4 mm±0.3 mm), thus indicating the clinical potential of this method for objective follow-up in pathological condylar resorption.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28708129 PMCID: PMC5709543 DOI: 10.1038/ijos.2017.22
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Oral Sci ISSN: 1674-2818 Impact factor: 6.344
Figure 1Workflow of the patient data image analysis. CBCT, cone-beam computed tomography; MSCT, multi-slice computed tomography.
Figure 2Workflow of the method reproducibility with MSCT data. 3D models generated by different observers were overlaid. A distance-to-curve analysis detected differences in the region of interest selection (mean: 1.25 mm, range: 0.3–2 mm). Before the part-comparison analysis, the error generated by the region of interest selection is subtracted (red colour). In this way, the calculation of the local differences between the 3D models is possible without counting the error of the region of interest selection. Part-comparison analysis from presented case shows a mean distance of 0.1 mm between the two condyles in the 3D models. 3D, three-dimensional; MSCT, multi-slice computed tomography.
Figure 3Accuracy of the condyle mineralized bone assessment. First column: The results of image registration between the different modalities. Second column: Image segmentation based on grey values. Third column: rendered 3D condylar models for all imaging modalities. The part-comparison analysis colour-codes the amount of overestimation in the inner and outer (surface) bone quantity between MSCT/CBCT and micro-CT. The green colour indicates an overestimation of less than one voxel between both 3D models and yellow and red indicate an overestimation of more than 0.375 mm. 3D, three-dimensional; CBCT, cone-beam computed tomography; MSCT, multi-slice computed tomography.
The mean and standard deviations of the absolute discrepancy measurements of volume, VOI selection and segmentation between observers (inter) and within-observer (intra) in MSCT and in CBCT data
| Scanner type | Observer relation | Volume/mm3 | VOI/mm | Segmentation/mm |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSCT | Intra | 120.0±92.6 | 0.9±0.8 | 0.1±0.2 |
| Inter | 178.6±149.3 | 0.8±0.8 | 0.3±0.3 | |
| CBCT | Intra | 136.1±143.5 | 0.5±0.5 | 0.2±0.2 |
| Inter | 174.1±201.1 | 0.7±0.7 | 0.2±0.2 |
CBCT, cone-beam computed tomography; MSCT, multi-slice computed tomography; VOI, volume of interest.