[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 5, Issue 1 (Journal of Research in Dental & Maxillofacial Sciences Winter 2020) ::
J Res Dentomaxillofac Sci 2020, 5(1): 13-20 Back to browse issues page
Correlation Between Tissue Densities in Computed Tomography and Three Different Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Units (In Vitro)
S Mehralizadeh * 1, AR Talaipour2, AR Ghassemi3, P Olyaee4, M Amiri siavoshani5
1- Assistant professor,Oral and maxilofacial Radiology Dept , faculty of Dentistry,Tehran medical sciences,Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran , sandramehr@yahoo.com
2- professor,Oral and maxilofacial Radiology Dept ,Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3- Professor of Oral, Maxillofacial and Plastic facial surgery Dept, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
4- Dentist, Frankfurt, Germany
5- Assistant professor,Oral and maxilofacial Radiology Dept , faculty of Dentistry,Tehran medical sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (152 Views)

Background and Aim: Bone density is of great assistance in the selection of the proper implant site. The present study aimed to assess the correlation between tissue densities in computed tomography (CT) and three different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) units.
Materials and Methods: In this descriptive study, a radiographic phantom consisting of a transparent polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) cylinder with a 50-mm height and a 50-mm diameter was used, which comprised eight materials, including air, fat, water, PMMA, muscle, cortical bone, cancellous bone, and aluminum. Each material was of 5 mm height and 5 mm in diameter. A 20-mm-thick hollow plexiglass cylinder was used to simulate the soft tissue. The phantom was scanned four times using 16-Slice Lightspeed CT, NewTom VGi, CRANEX 3D, and Rotograph Evo 3D CBCT units. The data were primarily reconstructed and transferred to the OnDemand 3D software in the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) format. All the assessments were made in the sagittal plane, and the average density of each of the mentioned eight materials was calculated with the proper grayscale value calculation of each system, which utilizes a simulation inherent density calculation for any region of interest (ROI).
Results: The results showed that tissue densities are different in CT and CBCT units. The values estimated by the CRANEX 3D unit approximated that of CT, followed by NewTom VGi and Rotograph Evo 3D CBCT units. Kruskal-Wallis test showed that the differences in the scores are statistically significant (P<0.01),
Conclusion: Considering the results, CBCT cannot accurately calculate tissue density.

Keywords: Bone Density, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, In Vitro Techniques, Multidetector Computed Tomography, Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Software
Full-Text [PDF 372 kb]   (48 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (43 Views)  
Type of Study: Original article | Subject: Radiology
* Corresponding Author Address: Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
References
1. Song YD, Jun SH, Kwon JJ. Correlation between bone quality evaluated by cone-beam computerized tomography and implant primary stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009 Jan-Feb;24(1):59-64.
2. Isoda K, Ayukawa Y, Tsukiyama Y, Sogo M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. Relationship between the bone density estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and the primary stability of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Jul;23(7):832-6. [DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02203.x] [PMID]
3. Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Pacifici A, Pacifici L, Barbato E. How accurate is CBCT in measuring bone density? A comparative CBCT-CT in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014 Aug;16(4):471-8. [DOI:10.1111/cid.12027] [PMID]
4. Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Reliability of voxel gray values in cone beam computed tomography for preoperative implant planning assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Nov-Dec;27(6):1438-42.
5. Armstrong RT. Acceptability of cone beam CT vs. multi-detector CT for 3D anatomic model construction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Sep;64(9):37. [DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2006.06.086]
6. Katsumata A, Hirukawa A, Okumura S, Naitoh M, Fujishita M, Ariji E, et al. Relationship between density variability and imaging volume size in cone-beam computerized tomographic scanning of the maxillofacial region: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Oral Endod. 2009 Mar;107(3):420-5. [DOI:10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.05.049] [PMID]
7. Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010 Sep;39(6):323-35. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr/19603304] [PMID] [PMCID]
8. Cassetta M, Giansanti M, Di Mambro A, Calasso S, Barbato E. Accuracy of two stereolithographic surgical templates: a retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Jun;15(3):448-59. [DOI:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00369.x] [PMID]
9. Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Giansanti M, Di Mambro A, Calasso S. Depth deviation and occurrence of early surgical complications or unexpected events using a single stereolithographic surgi-guide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Dec;40(12):1377-87. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijom.2011.09.009] [PMID]
10. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am. 2008 Oct;52(4):707-30. [DOI:10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005] [PMID]
11. Razi T, Niknami M, Alavi Ghazani F. Relationship between Hounsfield Unit in CT scan and gray scale in CBCT. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect. 2014 Spring;8(2):107-10.
12. Liu Y, Bäuerle T, Pan L, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG, Heiss C, et al. Calibration of cone beam CT using relative attenuation ratio for quantitative assessment of bone density: a small animal study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2013 Sep;8(5):733-9. [DOI:10.1007/s11548-012-0803-5] [PMID]
13. Carrafiello G, Dizonno M, Colli V, Strocchi S, Taubert SP, Leonardi A, et al. Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. Radiol Med. 2010 Jun;115(4):600-11. [DOI:10.1007/s11547-010-0520-5] [PMID]
14. Lagravere MO, Carey J, Toogood RW, Major PW. Three-dimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Jul;134(1):112-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.08.024] [PMID]
15. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol. 2012 Feb;81(2):267-71. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028] [PMID]
16. Hua Y, Nackaerts O, Duyck J, Maes F, Jacobs R. Bone quality assessment based on cone beam computed tomography imaging. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2009 Aug;20(8):767-71. [DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01677.x] [PMID]
17. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecka U, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011 Jul:40(5);265-73. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr/30642039] [PMID] [PMCID]
18. Kim DG. Can dental cone beam computed tomography assess bone mineral density? J Bone Metab. 2014 May;21(2):117-26. [DOI:10.11005/jbm.2014.21.2.117] [PMID] [PMCID]
19. Naitoh M, Hirukawa A, Katsumata A, Ariji E. Prospective study to estimate mandibular cancellous bone density using large-volume cone-beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2010 Dec;21(12):1309-13. [DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01950.x] [PMID]
20. Gonzalez-Garica R, Monje F. The reliability of cone-beam computed tomography to assess bone density at dental implant recipient sites: a histomorphometric analysis by micro-CT. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2013 Aug;24(8):871-9. [DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02390.x] [PMID]
21. Emadi N, Safi Y, Akbarzadeh Bagheban A, Asgary S. Comparison of CT-number and gray scale value of different dental materials and hard tissues in CT and CBCT. Iran Endod J. 2014 Fall;9(4):283-6.
22. Merrett SJ, Drage NA, Durning P. Cone beam computed tomography: a useful tool in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. J Orthod. 2009 Sep;36(3):202-10. [DOI:10.1179/14653120723193] [PMID]
23. Hofmann E, Medelnik J, Fink M, Lell M, Hischfelder U. Three-dimensional volume tomographic study of the imaging accuracy of impacted teeth: MSCT and CBCT comparison--an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod. 2013 Jun;35(3):286-94. [DOI:10.1093/ejo/cjr030] [PMID]
24. Litsas G, Acar A. A review of early displaced maxillary canines: etiology, diagnosis and interceptive treatment. Open Dent J. 2011 Mar 16;5:39-47. [DOI:10.2174/1874210601105010039] [PMID] [PMCID]
25. Arisan V, Karabuda ZC, Avsever H, Özdemir T. Conventional multi-slice computed tomography (CT) and cone-beam CT (CBCT) for computer-assisted implant placement. Part I: relationship of radiographic gray density and implant stability. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Dec;15(6):893-906. [DOI:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00436.x] [PMID]
26. Naitoh M, Hirukawa A, Katsumata A, Ariji E. Evaluation of voxel values in mandibular cancellous bone: relationship between cone-beam computed tomography and multislice helical computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 May;20(5):503-6. [DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01672.x] [PMID]
27. Schropp L, Alyass NS, Wenzel A, Stavropoulos A. Validity of wax and acrylic as soft-tissue simulation materials used in in vitro radiographic studies. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012 Dec;41(8):686-90. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr/33467269] [PMID] [PMCID]
28. Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Dus I, et al. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. Quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 May-Jun;20(3):416-24.
29. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006 Feb;72(1):75-80.
30. Haristoy RA, Valiyaparambil JV, Mallya SM. Correlation of CBCT gray scale values with bone densities. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107(4):e28. [DOI:10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.12.034]
31. Lagravere MO, Carey J, Ben-Zvi M, Packota GV, Major PW. Effect of object location on the density measurement and Hounsfield conversion in a NewTom 3G cone beam computer tomography unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008 Sep;37(6):305-8. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr/65993482] [PMID]
32. Parsa A. Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Influence of cone beam CT scanning parameters on gray value measurements at an implant site. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013 Mar;42(3):79884780. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr/79884780] [PMID] [PMCID]
33. Oliveira ML, Tosoni GM, Lindsey DH, Mendoza K, Tetradis S, Mallya SM. Influence of anatomical location on CT numbers in cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013 Apr;115(4):558-64. [DOI:10.1016/j.oooo.2013.01.021] [PMID]
34. Loubele M, Jacobs R, Maes F, Denis K, White S, Coudyzer W, et al. Image quality vs. radiation dose of four cone beam computed tomography scanners. Dentomaillofacial Radiol. 2008 Sep;37(6):309-18. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr/16770531] [PMID]
35. De Vos W, Casselman J. Swennen GR. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Jun;38(6);609-25. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijom.2009.02.028] [PMID]
36. Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer SR, Mupparapu M. CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable? Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(1):20140238. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr.20140238] [PMID] [PMCID]
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA


XML     Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Mehralizadeh S, Talaipour A, Ghassemi A, Olyaee P, Amiri siavoshani M. Correlation Between Tissue Densities in Computed Tomography and Three Different Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Units (In Vitro). J Res Dentomaxillofac Sci. 2020; 5 (1) :13-20
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-261-en.html


Volume 5, Issue 1 (Journal of Research in Dental & Maxillofacial Sciences Winter 2020) Back to browse issues page
Journal of Research in Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.22 seconds with 32 queries by YEKTAWEB 4075