+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Reliability and accuracy of cone beam computed tomography versus conventional multidetector computed tomography for image-guided craniofacial implant planning: An in vitro study



Reliability and accuracy of cone beam computed tomography versus conventional multidetector computed tomography for image-guided craniofacial implant planning: An in vitro study



International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 34(3): 665–672



Label="PURPOSE">To assess the reliability and accuracy of linear measurements on three-dimensional (3D) cross-sectional images, both acquired with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-detector row CT (MDCT). Bone thickness was evaluated with regard to image-guided planning of craniofacial implant surgery.Label="MATERIALS AND METHODS">Five dry human skulls were used. Cuts were made with a circular bone saw at the ideal implant positions in the nasal, orbital, and temporal regions prior to acquisition of CBCT and MDCT scans. After imaging examination, bone width was assessed by three independent observers using a caliper and defined as a reference. In the next step, cross-sectional images of the regions with the aforementioned cuts were reconstructed from 3D virtual models generated from the digital DICOM datasets with the use of 3D image-based planning software. Subsequently, linear measurements were performed. The systematic difference and interobserver and intraobserver variation of MDCT and CBCT linear measurements were compared with the physical measurements at different locations in the nasal, orbital, and temporal region, respectively. Also, the potential influence of different gray-level values was investigated. The quantitative accuracy of distance measurements was performed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and variance component analyses. Only differences with P values < .05 were considered significant.Label="RESULTS">All radiologic measurements showed a significant overestimation of the bony dimensions, reaching more than the used voxel sizes of 0.3 mm for CBCT and 0.5 mm for MDCT. For CBCT, an average measurement bias of 0.39 to 0.53 mm and for MDCT of 0.57 to 0.59 mm was found. MDCT images showed less interobserver variation in linear measurements on cross-sectional images from 3D virtual models compared with CBCT images. Contrast settings statistically significantly influenced linear measurements of bone width for CBCT images (P < .0015) and interobserver variation on MDCT imaging (P < .029).Label="CONCLUSION">Both CBCT images (KaVo 3D eXam Imaging System) and MDCT images (Aquilion ONE, Toshiba) showed a highly consistent submillimeter overestimation of the anatomical truth in assessing bone thickness of nasal, orbital, and temporal regions of ex vivo specimens. When using CBCT and MDCT images for presurgical assessment, one should be aware of the overestimation of the cortical bone thickness.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 066645410

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 30934042

DOI: 10.11607/jomi.6915


Related references

A comparative study of the accuracy and reliability of multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in the assessment of dental implant site dimensions. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology 40(2): 67-75, 2011

Accuracy in automatic image registration between MV cone beam computed tomography and planning kV computed tomography in image guided radiotherapy. Reports of Practical Oncology and RadioTherapy 21(5): 487-494, 2016

Comparison of cone-beam and conventional multislice computed tomography for image-guided dental implant planning. Clinical Oral Investigations 17(1): 317-324, 2013

Multichannel computed tomography versus cone-beam computed tomography: linear accuracy of in vitro measurements of the maxilla for implant placement. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 25(3): 499-505, 2010

Comparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conventional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontics 107(4): 559-565, 2009

Detection of root perforations using conventional and digital intraoral radiography, multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography. Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics 40(1): 58-67, 2015

Comparison of image validity between cone beam computed tomography for dental use and multidetector row helical computed tomography. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology 36(8): 465-471, 2007

Comparison of the Diagnostic Image Quality of the Canine Maxillary Dentoalveolar Structures Obtained by Cone Beam Computed Tomography and 64-Multidetector Row Computed Tomography. Journal of Veterinary Dentistry 32(2): 80-86, 2015

Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Radiation Dose-Equivalent Radiography, Multidetector Computed Tomography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography for Fractures of Adult Cadaveric Wrists. Plos one 11(10): E0164859, 2016

Cone Beam Computed Tomography vs Multislice Computed Tomography in Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Assisted Manufacture Guided Implant Surgery Based on Three-Dimensional Optical Scanning and Stereolithographic Guides: Does Image Modality Matter?. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 31(3): 527-533, 2017

Comparison of the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and medical computed tomography: implications for clinical diagnostics with guided surgery. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 28(2): 536-542, 2014

Accuracy of the match between cone beam computed tomography and model scan data in template-guided implant planning: A prospective controlled clinical study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 20(4): 541-549, 2018

Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography for syndesmosis injury diagnosis compared to conventional computed tomography. Foot and Ankle Surgery 2019:, 2019

Image-guided radiotherapy for liver cancer using respiratory-correlated computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics 71(1): 297-304, 2008

Dose and image quality of cone-beam computed tomography as compared with conventional multislice computed tomography in abdominal imaging. Investigative Radiology 49(10): 675-684, 2014