Asma'a A Al-Ekrish1, Sara A Alfadda2, Wadea Ameen3, Romed Hörmann4, Wolfgang Puelacher5, Gerlig Widmann6. 1. Department of Oral Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, 60169, Riyadh, 11545, Saudi Arabia. aalekrish@ksu.edu.sa. 2. Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, 60169, Riyadh, 11545, Saudi Arabia. 3. Department of Industrial Engineering, Advanced Manufacturing Institute, College of Engineering, King Saud University, 800, Riyadh, 11421, Saudi Arabia. 4. Division of Clinical and Functional Anatomy, Medical University of Innsbruck, Müllerstrasse 59, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. 5. Department of CMF Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. 6. Department of Radiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the surface of computer-aided design (CAD) models of the maxilla produced using ultra-low MDCT doses combined with filtered backprojection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) reconstruction techniques with that produced from a standard dose/FBP protocol. METHODS: A cadaveric completely edentulous maxilla was imaged using a standard dose protocol (CTDIvol: 29.4 mGy) and FBP, in addition to 5 low dose test protocols (LD1-5) (CTDIvol: 4.19, 2.64, 0.99, 0.53, and 0.29 mGy) reconstructed with FBP, ASIR 50, ASIR 100, and MBIR. A CAD model from each test protocol was superimposed onto the reference model using the 'Best Fit Alignment' function. Differences between the test and reference models were analyzed as maximum and mean deviations, and root-mean-square of the deviations, and color-coded models were obtained which demonstrated the location, magnitude and direction of the deviations. RESULTS: Based upon the magnitude, size, and distribution of areas of deviations, CAD models from the following protocols were comparable to the reference model: FBP/LD1; ASIR 50/LD1 and LD2; ASIR 100/LD1, LD2, and LD3; MBIR/LD1. The following protocols demonstrated deviations mostly between 1-2 mm or under 1 mm but over large areas, and so their effect on surgical guide accuracy is questionable: FBP/LD2; MBIR/LD2, LD3, LD4, and LD5. The following protocols demonstrated large deviations over large areas and therefore were not comparable to the reference model: FBP/LD3, LD4, and LD5; ASIR 50/LD3, LD4, and LD5; ASIR 100/LD4, and LD5. CONCLUSIONS: When MDCT is used for CAD models of the jaws, dose reductions of 86% may be possible with FBP, 91% with ASIR 50, and 97% with ASIR 100. Analysis of the stability and accuracy of CAD/CAM surgical guides as directly related to the jaws is needed to confirm the results.
PURPOSE: To compare the surface of computer-aided design (CAD) models of the maxilla produced using ultra-low MDCT doses combined with filtered backprojection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) reconstruction techniques with that produced from a standard dose/FBP protocol. METHODS: A cadaveric completely edentulous maxilla was imaged using a standard dose protocol (CTDIvol: 29.4 mGy) and FBP, in addition to 5 low dose test protocols (LD1-5) (CTDIvol: 4.19, 2.64, 0.99, 0.53, and 0.29 mGy) reconstructed with FBP, ASIR 50, ASIR 100, and MBIR. A CAD model from each test protocol was superimposed onto the reference model using the 'Best Fit Alignment' function. Differences between the test and reference models were analyzed as maximum and mean deviations, and root-mean-square of the deviations, and color-coded models were obtained which demonstrated the location, magnitude and direction of the deviations. RESULTS: Based upon the magnitude, size, and distribution of areas of deviations, CAD models from the following protocols were comparable to the reference model: FBP/LD1; ASIR 50/LD1 and LD2; ASIR 100/LD1, LD2, and LD3; MBIR/LD1. The following protocols demonstrated deviations mostly between 1-2 mm or under 1 mm but over large areas, and so their effect on surgical guide accuracy is questionable: FBP/LD2; MBIR/LD2, LD3, LD4, and LD5. The following protocols demonstrated large deviations over large areas and therefore were not comparable to the reference model: FBP/LD3, LD4, and LD5; ASIR 50/LD3, LD4, and LD5; ASIR 100/LD4, and LD5. CONCLUSIONS: When MDCT is used for CAD models of the jaws, dose reductions of 86% may be possible with FBP, 91% with ASIR 50, and 97% with ASIR 100. Analysis of the stability and accuracy of CAD/CAM surgical guides as directly related to the jaws is needed to confirm the results.
Authors: M Loubele; R Jacobs; F Maes; F Schutyser; D Debaveye; R Bogaerts; W Coudyzer; D Vandermeulen; J van Cleynenbreugel; G Marchal; P Suetens Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2006-02-03 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: B T Primo; A C Presotto; H W de Oliveira; H T Gassen; S A Q Miguens; A N Silva; P A G Hernandez Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2012-05-11 Impact factor: 2.789
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Leena M Hamberg; Michael A Blake; Jo-Anne Shepard; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-01-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Cynthia H McCollough; Andrew N Primak; Natalie Braun; James Kofler; Lifeng Yu; Jodie Christner Journal: Radiol Clin North Am Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 2.303