Imaging Science in Dentistry

  • 제54권4호
  • /
  • Pages.354-361
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2233-7822(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-7830(eISSN)
대한영상치의학회 (Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Validation of novel measurement protocols proposed for the standardized assessment of crestal bone levels: A cone-beam computed tomography study

  • Ali Fahd (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Egyptian Russian University) ;
  • Aya A. Hussien (Department of Oral Medicine, Periodontology and Oral Diagnosis, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Egyptian Russian University) ;
  • Mohamed T. Ellabban (Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Faculty of Dentistry, Assiut University) ;
  • Zein A. Shatat (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Assiut University)
  • 투고 : 2024.04.17
  • 심사 : 2024.06.26
  • 발행 : 2024.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: This study was performed to introduce, evaluate, and compare various novel assessment protocols designed for straightforward, reliable, and reproducible measurement of alveolar bone levels. These protocols are intended for standardized periodontal assessment and follow-up, utilizing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images and manipulation of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) viewer software. Materials and Methods: Two experienced oral and maxillofacial radiologists developed 5 distinct radiographic measurement protocols. These techniques were established to assess the alveolar bone level of a periodontally affected upper central incisor using a method that is consistently repeatable across observers. Two additional assessors, blinded to the details of the study, independently applied the protocols to retrieved DICOM files that met the eligibility criteria. A scoring system with 3 subscores was created and used to compare the protocols. Results: Statistically excellent inter-observer reliability was observed for all protocols, other than protocol 1, which demonstrated moderate reliability. The average discrepancy between measurements taken by the 2 observers was 1.2 mm for protocol 1, 0.81 mm for protocol 2, and less than 0.5 mm for the remaining 3 protocols. All approaches except protocol 4 were straightforward to apply. Conclusion: This study introduces multiple reliable protocols for the evaluation of periodontal bone levels that ensure consistency across observers. Based on the findings, the double axial lines and incisocrestal distance protocols are recommended. These new assessment approaches, along with any future modifications, may be useful in periodontal assessment, dental implant follow-up, orthodontic evaluation, research, and artificial intelligence model generation.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Corbet EF, Ho DK, Lai SM. Radiographs in periodontal disease diagnosis and management. Aust Dent J 2009; 54 Suppl 1: S27-43.
  2. Tonetti MS, Greenwell H, Kornman KS. Staging and grading of periodontitis: framework and proposal of a new classification and case definition. J Periodontol 2018; 89 Suppl 1: S159-72.
  3. Ting S, Attaia D, Johnson KB, Kossa SS, Friedland B, Allareddy V, et al. Can modifying shielding, field of view, and exposure settings make the effective dose of a cone-beam computed tomography comparable to traditional radiographs used for orthodontic diagnosis? Angle Orthod 2020; 90: 655-64.
  4. Zhang X, Li Y, Ge Z, Zhao H, Miao L, Pan Y. The dimension and morphology of alveolar bone at maxillary anterior teeth in periodontitis: a retrospective analysis-using CBCT. Int J Oral Sci 2020; 12: 4.
  5. Oberoi S, Knueppel S. Three-dimensional assessment of impacted canines and root resorption using cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012; 113: 260-7.
  6. Bouwens DG, Cevidanes L, Ludlow JB, Phillips C. Comparison of mesiodistal root angulation with posttreatment panoramic radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: 126-32.
  7. Corbridge JK, Campbell PM, Taylor R, Ceen RF, Buschang PH. Transverse dentoalveolar changes after slow maxillary expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140: 317-25.
  8. Patcas R, Müller L, Ullrich O, Peltomäki T. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography at different resolutions assessed on the bony covering of the mandibular anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 141: 41-50.
  9. Timock AM, Cook V, McDonald T, Leo MC, Crowe J, Benninger BL, et al. Accuracy and reliability of buccal bone height and thickness measurements from cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140:734-44.
  10. 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.
  11. Fahd A, Temerek AT, Kenawy SM. Validation of different protocols of inferior alveolar canal tracing using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2022; 51: 20220016.
  12. Guo YJ, Ge ZP, Ma RH, Hou JX, Li G. A six-site method for the evaluation of periodontal bone loss in cone-beam CT images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016; 45: 20150265.
  13. Menezes CC, Janson G, da Silveira Massaro C, Cambiaghi L, Garib DG. Precision, reproducibility, and accuracy of bone crest level measurements of CBCT cross sections using different resolutions. Angle Orthod 2016; 86: 535-42.
  14. Padala S, Tee BC, Beck FM, Elias K, Kim DG, Sun Z. The usefulness of cone-beam computed tomography gray values for alveolar bone linear measurements. Angle Orthod 2018; 88:227-32.
  15. Arifin WN. A web-based sample size calculator for reliability studies. Edu Med J 2018; 10: 67-76.
  16. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15: 155-63.
  17. Gribel BF, Gribel MN, Frazäo DC, McNamara JA Jr, Manzi FR. Accuracy and reliability of craniometric measurements on lateral cephalometry and 3D measurements on CBCT scans. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 26-35.
  18. Wood R, Sun Z, Chaudhry J, Tee BC, Kim DG, Leblebicioglu B, et al. Factors affecting the accuracy of buccal alveolar bone height measurements from cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 143: 353-63.
  19. Cook VC, Timock AM, Crowe JJ, Wang M, Covell DA Jr. Accuracy of alveolar bone measurements from cone beam computed tomography acquired using varying settings. Orthod Craniofac Res 2015; 18 Suppl 1: 127-36.
  20. Jaju PP, Jaju SP. Cone-beam computed tomography: time to move from ALARA to ALADA. Imaging Sci Dent 2015; 45: 263-5.
  21. American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. The use of cone-beam computed tomography in dentistry: an advisory statement from the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. J Am Dent Assoc 2012; 143: 899-902.
  22. Grimard BA, Hoidal MJ, Mills MP, Mellonig JT, Nummikoski PV, Mealey BL. Comparison of clinical, periapical radiograph, and cone-beam volume tomography measurement techniques for assessing bone level changes following regenerative periodontal therapy. J Periodontol 2009; 80: 48-55.
  23. Elmesellawy MY, Fahd A, Nasr M. Assessment of mesiobuccal root canal curvature in maxillary molars of Egyptian population: a standardized CBCT-based radiographic protocol. Ain Shams Dent J 2024; 34: 195-202.
  24. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72: 75-80.
  25. 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.
  26. Lascala CA, Panella J, Marques MM. Analysis of the accuracy oflinear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomog-raphy(CBCT-NewTom). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:291-4.
  27. Kang F, Wu Y, Cui Y, Yuan J, Hu Z, Zhu X. The displacement of teeth and stress distribution on periodontal ligament under different upper incisors proclination with clear aligner in cases of extraction: a finite element study. Prog Orthod 2023; 24: 38.
  28. Fahd A, Temerek AT, Ellabban MT, Adam SA, Shaheen SD, Refai MS, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography-based radiographic considerations in impacted lower third molars: think outside the box. Imaging Sci Dent 2023; 53: 137-44.
  29. Mol A, Balasundaram A. In vitro cone beam computed tomography imaging of periodontal bone. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 319-24.
  30. Hefti AF, Preshaw PM. Examiner alignment and assessment in clinical periodontal research. Periodontol 2000 2012; 59: 41-60.