Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

Diagnostic performance of stitched and non-stitched cross-sectional cone-beam computed tomography images of a non-displaced fracture of ovine mandibular bone

  • Farzane Ostovarrad (Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Sadra Masali Markiyeh (Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Zahra Dalili Kajan (Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2023.07.19
  • Accepted : 2023.10.11
  • Published : 2023.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study assessed the diagnostic performance of stitched and non-stitched cross-sectional cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of non-displaced ovine mandibular fractures. Materials and Methods: In this ex vivo study, non-displaced fractures were artificially created in 10 ovine mandibles (20 hemi-mandibles) using a hammer. The control group comprised 8 hemi-mandibles. The non-displaced fracture lines were oblique or vertical, <0.5 mm wide, 10-20 mm long, and only in the buccal or lingual cortex. Fracture lines in the ramus and posterior mandible were created to be at the interface or borders of the 2 stitched images. CBCT images were obtained from the specimens with an 80 mm×80 mm field of view before and after fracture induction. OnDemand software (Cybermed, Seoul, Korea) was used for stitching the CBCT images. Four observers evaluated 56 (28 stitched and 28 non-stitched) images to detect fracture lines. The diagnostic performance of stitched and non-stitched images was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Sensitivity and specificity values were also calculated (alpha=0.05). Results: The AUC was calculated to be 0.862 and 0.825 for the stitched and non-stitched images, respectively (P=0.747). The sensitivity and specificity were 90% and 75% for the non-stitched images and 85% and 87% for the stitched images, respectively. The inter-observer reliability was shown by a Fleiss kappa coefficient of 0.79, indicating good agreement. Conclusion: No significant difference was found in the diagnostic performance of stitched and non-stitched cross-sectional CBCT images of non-displaced fractures of the ovine mandible.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Dr. Mohammad Ebrahim Ghafari (Dental Sciences Research Center, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran) for his help in statistical analysis.

References

  1. Schulze KW, Drage NA. Cone-beam computed tomography and its applications in dental and maxillofacial radiology. Clin Radiol 2020; 75: 647-57.
  2. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72: 75-80.
  3. Ahmad M, Jenny J, Downie M. Application of cone beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Aust Dent J 2012; 57 Suppl 1: 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01661.x
  4. White SC. Cone-beam imaging in dentistry. Health Phys 2008; 95: 628-37. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HP.0000326340.81581.1a
  5. Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Cone beam CT of the head and neck, part 2: clinical applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30: 1285-92. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1654
  6. Egbert N, Cagna DR, Ahuja S, Wicks RA. Accuracy and reliability of stitched cone-beam computed tomography images. Imaging Sci Dent 2015; 45: 41-7. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2015.45.1.41
  7. Scarfe WC, Li Z, Aboelmaaty W, Scott SA, Farman AG. Maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: essence, elements and steps to interpretation. Aust Dent J 2012; 57 Suppl 1: 46-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01657.x
  8. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am 2008; 52: 707-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005
  9. Kopp S, Ottl P. Dimensional stability in composite cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010; 39: 512-6. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/28358586
  10. Nikbin A, Dalili Kajan Z, Taramsari M, Khosravifard N. Effect of object position in the field of view and application of a metal artifact reduction algorithm on the detection of vertical root fractures on cone-beam computed tomography scans: an in vitro study. Imaging Sci Dent 2018; 48: 245-54. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2018.48.4.245
  11. De Smet E, De Praeter G, Verstraete KL, Wouters K, De Beuckeleer L, Vanhoenacker FM. Direct comparison of conventional radiography and cone-beam CT in small bone and joint trauma. Skeletal Radiol 2015; 44: 1111-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2127-3
  12. Kaeppler G, Cornelius CP, Ehrenfeld M, Mast G. Diagnostic efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography for mandibular fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013; 116: 98-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2013.04.004
  13. Miloro M, Ghali GE, Larsen PE, Waite PD. Peterson's principles of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2nd ed. New Haven: PMPH USA; 2004. p. 410.
  14. Eskandarlou A, Poorolajal J, Talaeipour AR, Talebi S, Talaeipour M. Comparison between cone beam computed tomography and multislice computed tomography in diagnostic accuracy of maxillofacial fractures in dried human skull: an in vitro study. Dent Traumatol 2014; 30: 162-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.12058
  15. Shokri A, Eskandarloo A, Norouzi M, Poorolajal J, Majidi G, Aliyaly A. Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography scans with high- and low-resolution modes for the detection of root perforations. Imaging Sci Dent 2018; 48: 11-9. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2018.48.1.11
  16. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988: 44: 837-45. https://doi.org/10.2307/2531595
  17. Ozemre MO, Gulsahi A. Comparison of the accuracy of full head cone beam CT images obtained using a large field of view and stitched images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018; 47: 20170454.
  18. Hamed DA, El Dawlatly MM, El Dessouky SH, Hamdy RM. Accuracy of linear measurements obtained from stitched cone beam computed tomography images versus direct skull measurements. F1000Res 2019; 8: 166.
  19. Kim MK, Kang SH, Lee EH, Lee SH, Park W. Accuracy and validity of stitching sectional cone beam computed tomographic images. J Craniofac Surg 2012; 23: 1071-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31824e2c85
  20. Abd Alsamad AM. Accuracy of linear measurements in stitched cone beam computed tomographic images an in-vitro study. Egypt Dent J 2017; 63: 2435-40. https://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2017.76060
  21. Wellenberg RH, Dobbe JG, Erkkila J, Maas M, Streekstra GJ. Marker-less assessment of the geometric error of fused cone-beam computed tomography images of the foot constructed using stitching software. Acta Radiol 2021; 62: 1341-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185120963955