| Literature DB >> 30674282 |
Rong-Ting He1, Ming-Gene Tu1,2, Heng-Li Huang1,3, Ming-Tzu Tsai4, Jay Wu5, Jui-Ting Hsu6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study, we explored how various preprocessing approaches can be employed to enhance the capability of dental CBCT to accurately estimate trabecular bone microarchitectural parameters.Entities:
Keywords: Dental cone-beam computed tomography; Image preprocessing approach; Micro-computed tomography; Trabecular bone microarchitectural parameters
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30674282 PMCID: PMC6343305 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-019-0313-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 1.930
Fig. 1Original and ROI images of the two scanning methods: (top) micro-CT image; (bottom) dental CBCT image
Fig. 2Preprocessing of micro-CT (group 0) and dental CBCT (Group 1 to 4) images before binary image conversion for calculating trabecular bone microarchitectural parameters
Measurements of trabecular bone microarchitectural parameters based on the micro-CT and dental CBCT images
| Scanning machine | Group | Microarchitectural parameters of trabecular bone | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BV/TV (%) | TbTh (mm) | TbN (1/mm) | TbSp (mm) | ||||||
| Mean ± SD | Range | Mean ± SD | Range | Mean ± SD | Range | Mean ± SD | Range | ||
| Micro-CT | 0 | 23.85 ± 7.83 | 9.04–40.18 | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 0.16–0.26 | 1.18 ± 0.37 | 0.45–1.99 | 0.72 ± 0.22 | 0.41–1.32 |
| Dental CBCT | 1 | 60.27 ± 9.81 | 36.27–87.28 | 1.15 ± 0.37 | 0.77–2.72 | 0.55 ± 0.09 | 0.32–0.69 | 0.94 ± 0.14 | 0.79–1.41 |
| 2 | 60.58 ± 9.13 | 32.42–79.16 | 0.88 ± 0.20 | 0.62–1.59 | 0.71 ± 0.12 | 0.45–0.95 | 0.77 ± 0.17 | 0.57–1.34 | |
| 3 | 58.87 ± 6.54 | 36.70–67.67 | 0.81 ± 0.11 | 0.61–1.23 | 0.74 ± 0.12 | 0.44–0.98 | 0.75 ± 0.16 | 0.56–1.23 | |
| 4 | 44.10 ± 12.55 | 16.90–60.93 | 0.65 ± 0.08 | 0.50–0.84 | 0.64 ± 0.15 | 0.33–0.98 | 0.85 ± 0.22 | 0.56–1.38 | |
Correlation between the estimates for four trabecular bone microarchitectural parameters obtained through micro-CT and those obtained through CBCT
| Comparison | Trabecular bone microarchitecture | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BV/TV | TbTh | TbN | TbSp | ||
| Group 0 vs Group 1 |
| −0.15 | −0.14 | 0.29 | 0.78 |
| Pa | 0.412 | 0.455 | 0.117 | < 0.001* | |
| Group 0 vs Group 2 |
| 0.16 | −0.33 | 0.66 | 0.89 |
| Pa | 0.386 | 0.069 | < 0.001* | < 0.001* | |
| Group 0 vs Group 3 |
| 0.49 | −0.36 | 0.75 | 0.93 |
| Pa | 0.006* | 0.047* | < 0.001* | < 0.001* | |
| Group 0 vs Group 4 |
| 0.87 | 0.29 | 0.80 | 0.88 |
| Pa | < 0.001* | 0.116 | < 0.001* | < 0.001* | |
a Paired T-tests
*Statistical significance (P < 0.05)
Pearson relation coefficient (r) between micro-CT and dental CBCT measurements in this study and previous studies
| References | Correlation between micro-CT and dental CBCT measurement | Sample source (sample number) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BV/TV | TbTh | TbN | TbSp | ||
| This study | 0.87* | 0.29 | 0.80* | 0.88* | Fresh bovine vertebrae cancellous bone (30) |
| Ibrahim et al. [ | NA | 0.82* | 0.85* | 0.94* | Human cadaveric mandible (24) |
| Parsa et al. [ | 0.82* | NA | NA | NA | Human cadaveric mandible (20) |
| Van Dessel et al. [ | 0.76–0.89* | 0.21–0.57 | 0.72–0.86* | 0.61–0.84* | Human cadaveric mandible (8) |
| Kim et al. [ | 0.61* | 0.05 | 0.25* | 0.58* | Human cadaveric jawbone (68) |
| Panmekiate et al. [ | 0.80 | 0.52 | NA | 0.55 | Human cadaveric mandible (20) |
P value * < 0.05
NA Not available