Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in linear measurements on axial images obtained by cone-beam computed tomography

  • Silva, Nathalia Cristine da (Sao Leopoldo Mandic Research Center, Department of Oral Radiology, College of Dentistry) ;
  • Barriviera, Mauricio (Department of Oral Radiology, College of Dentistry, Catholic University of Brasilia) ;
  • Junqueira, Jose Luiz Cintra (Sao Leopoldo Mandic Research Center, Department of Oral Radiology, College of Dentistry) ;
  • Panzarella, Francine Kuhl (Sao Leopoldo Mandic Research Center, Department of Oral Radiology, College of Dentistry) ;
  • Raitz, Ricardo (Sao Leopoldo Mandic Research Center, Department of Oral Radiology, College of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2016.05.23
  • Accepted : 2016.10.31
  • Published : 2017.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was performed to investigate the intra- and inter-observer variability in linear measurements with axial images obtained by PreXion (PreXion Inc., San Mateo, USA) and i-CAT(Imaging Sciences International, Xoran Technologies Inc., Hatfield, USA) CBCT scanners, with different voxel sizes. Materials and Methods: A cylindrical object made from nylon with radiopaque markers (phantom) was scanned by i-CAT and PreXion 3D devices. For each axial image, measurements were taken twice in the horizontal(distance A-B) and vertical (distance C-D) directions, randomly, with a one-week interval between measurements, by four oral radiologists with five years or more experience in the use of these measuring tools. Results: All of the obtained linear measurements had lower values than those of the phantom. The statistical analysis showed high intra- and inter-observer reliability (p=0.297). Compared to the real measurements, the measurements obtained using the i-CAT device and PreXion tomography, on average, revealed absolute errors ranging from 0.22 to 0.59 mm and from 0.23 to 0.63 mm, respectively. Conclusion: It can be concluded that both scanners are accurate, although the linear measurements are underestimations, with no significant differences between the evaluators.

Keywords

References

  1. Nikneshan S, Aval SH, Bakhshalian N, Shahab S, Mohammadpour M, Sarikhani S. Accuracy of linear measurement using cone-beam computed tomography at different reconstruction angles. Imaging Sci Dent 2014; 44: 257-62. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2014.44.4.257
  2. Wikner J, Hanken H, Eulenburg C, Heiland M, Grobe A, Assaf AT, et al. Linear accuracy and reliability of volume data sets acquired by two CBCT-devices and an MSCT using virtual models: a comparative in-vitro study. Acta Odontol Scand 2016: 74; 51-9. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2015.1040064
  3. Leung CC, Palomo L, Griffith R, Hans MG. Accuracy and reliability of cone-beam computed tomography for measuring alveolar bone height and detecting bony dehiscences and fenestrations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137(4 Suppl): S109-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.07.013
  4. Ganguly R, Ruprecht A, Vincent S, Hellstein J, Timmons S, Qian F. Accuracy of linear measurement in the Galileos cone beam computed tomography under simulated clinical conditions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 299-305. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/72117593
  5. Patcas R, Markic G, Muller L, Ullrich O, Peltomaki T, Kellenberger CJ, et al. Accuracy of linear intraoral measurements using cone beam CT and multidetector CT: a tale of two CTs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 637-44. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/21152480
  6. Panzarella FK, Junqueira JL, Oliveira LB, de Araujo NS, Costa C. Accuracy assessment of the axial images obtained from cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 369-78. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/88722046
  7. Kamburoglu K, Kolsuz E, Kurt H, Kilic C, Ozen T, Paksoy CS. Accuracy of CBCT measurements of a human skull. J Digit Imaging 2011; 24: 787-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-010-9339-9
  8. Sabban H, Mahdian M, Dhingra A, Lurie AG, Tadinada A. Evaluation of linear measurements of implant sites based on head orientation during acquisition: an ex vivo study using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent 2015; 45: 73-80. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2015.45.2.73
  9. Sheikhi M, Dakhil-Alian M, Bahreinian Z. Accuracy and reliability of linear measurements using tangential projection and cone beam computed tomography. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2015; 12: 271-7.
  10. Thonissen P, Ermer MA, Schmelzeisen R, Gutwald R, Metzger MC, Bittermann G. Sensitivity and specificity of cone beam computed tomography in thin bony structures in maxillofacial surgery - A clinical trial. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43: 1284-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.05.002
  11. Moshfeghi M, Tavakoli MA, Hosseini ET, Hosseini AT, Hosseini IT. Analysis of linear measurement accuracy obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom VG). Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012; 9(Suppl 1): S57-62.
  12. Maroua AL, Ajaj M, Hajeer MY. The accuracy and reproducibility of linear measurements made on CBCT-derived digital models. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17: 294-9. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1844
  13. Brullmann D, Schulze RK. Spatial resolution in CBCT machines for dental/maxillofacial applications - what do we know today? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140204. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140204
  14. Waltrick KB, Nunes de Abreu Junior MJ, Correa M, Zastrow MD, Dutra VD. Accuracy of linear measurements and visibility of the mandibular canal of cone-beam computed tomography images with different voxel sizes: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 2013; 84: 68-77. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2012.110524
  15. Torres MG, Campos PS, Segundo NP, Navarro M, Crusoe-Rebello I. Accuracy of linear measurements in cone beam computed tomography with different voxel sizes. Implant Dent 2012; 21: 150-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e31824bf93c
  16. Watanabe H, Honda E, Tetsumura A, Kurabayashi T. A comparative study for spatial resolution and subjective image characteristics of a multi-slice CT and a cone-beam CT for dental use. Eur J Radiol 2011; 77: 397-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.09.023
  17. Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Impact of voxel size variation on CBCT-based diagnostic outcome in dentistry: a systematic review. J Digit Imaging 2013; 26: 813-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9562-7
  18. Menezes RF, Araujo NC, Santa Rosa JM, Carneiro VS, Santos Neto AP, Costa V, et al. Detection of vertical root fractures in endodontically treated teeth in the absence and in the presence of metal post by cone-beam computed tomography. BMC Oral Health 2016; 16: 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-016-0207-y
  19. Khoury HJ, Andrade ME, Araujo MW, Brasileiro IV, Kramer R, Huda A. Dosimetric study of mandible examinations performed with three cone-beam computed tomography scanners. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2015; 165: 162-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncv058
  20. Dalmau E, Zamora N, Tarazona B, Gandia JL, Paredes V. A comparative study of the pharyngeal airway space, measured with cone beam computed tomography, between patients with different craniofacial morphologies. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43: 1438-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.06.016
  21. Lukat TD, Perschbacher SE, Pharoah MJ, Lam EW. The effects of voxel size on cone beam computed tomography images of the temporomandibular joints. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015; 119: 229-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2014.10.015
  22. Liedke GS, Spin-Neto R, da Silveira HE, Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Wenzel A. Factors affecting the possibility to detect buccal bone condition around dental implants using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res (in press).
  23. Shokri A, Khajeh S. In vitro comparison of the effect of different slice thicknesses on the accuracy of linear measurements on cone beam computed tomography images in implant sites. J Craniofac Surg 2015; 26: 157-60. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000001031
  24. Glover GH, Pelc NJ. Nonlinear partial volume artifacts in x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 1980; 7: 238-48. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.594678
  25. Baumgaertel S, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Hans MG. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.09.016
  26. Sun Z, Smith T, Kortam S, Kim DG, Tee BC, Fields H. Effect of bone thickness on alveolar bone-height measurements from cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: e117-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.08.016
  27. Maret D, Telmon N, Peters OA, Lepage B, Treil J, Inglese JM, et al. Effect of voxel size on the accuracy of 3D reconstructions with cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 649-55. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/81804525
  28. Ganguly R, Ramesh A, Pagni S. The accuracy of linear measurements of maxillary and mandibular edentulous sites in cone-beam computed tomography images with different fields of view and voxel sizes under simulated clinical conditions. Imaging Sci Dent 2016; 46: 93-101. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2016.46.2.93

Cited by

  1. Accuracy of Maxillary Repositioning by Using Surgical Navigation System vol.28, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5927/jjjd.28.19
  2. Influence of voxel size on the accuracy of linear measurements of the condyle in images of cone beam computed tomography: A pilot study vol.10, pp.9, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.54500