Cone-beam computed tomography and microtomography for alveolar bone measurements
- 437 Downloads
To compare cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and microtomography (micro-CT) for alveolar bone measurements.
Forty teeth and alveolar bone blocks of five pigs were scanned on a micro-CT with a 9.05 μm pixel size, and on a CBCT device at 0.125 mm voxel size. One height and four thickness measurements were performed twice in standardized slices by two radiologists to verify reliability. Agreement between imaging methods was assessed by correlation coefficients, Bland–Altman plots, and the difference was tested by a Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Regarding intra- and interobserver agreements, all bone measurements presented excellent precision values for micro-CT, but interobserver agreement for CBCT presented good to moderate values. Bone height differed about 0.3 mm, but no statistically significant differences were found for the bone thickness measurements.
CBCT underestimated bone height. No statistically significant differences were found for bone thickness. Regions of thin bone tissue may not be visualized on CBCT images. There are risks of underestimating bone measurements with CBCT and assuming bone loss that does not exist clinically. Although the difference of the bone height measurement was small, the clinical relevance must be analyzed on how to interpret CBCT
KeywordsCone-beam computed tomography X-ray microtomography (micro-CT) Reproducibility of results Alveolar bone
Conflict of interest
- 5.Hassan B, Souza PC, Jacobs R, Berti SA, van der Stelt P (2010) Influence of scanning and reconstruction parameters on quality of three-dimensional surface models of the dental arches from cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig 14:303–310. doi: 10.1007/s00784-009-0291-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, Souza PC, Martens W, Shahbazian M, Alonso A, Lambrichts I (2010) A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (cbct) and multi-slice Ct (Msct) Part I. on subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol 75:265–269. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.042 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Oth O, Louryan S, van Sint Jan S, Rooze M, Glineur R (2012) Impact of the mandibular divergence on the position of the inferior alveolar nerve and mylohyoid nerve: a computed tomography atudy and its relevance to bilateral sagittal aplit osteotomy. Surg Radiol Anat. doi: 10.1007/s00276-012-1010-3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Particelli F, Mecozzi L, Beraudi A, Montesi M, Baruffaldi F, Viceconti M (2012) A comparison between micro-CT and histology for the evaluation of cortical bone: effect of polymethylmethacrylate embedding on structural parameters. J Microsc 245:302–310. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2818.2011.03573.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Thomsen JS, Laib A, Koller B, Prohaskas S, Mosekilde LI, Gowin W (2005) Sterelogical measures of trabecular bone structure: comparison of 3D micro computed tomography with 2D histological sections in human proximal tibial one biopsies. J Microsc 218:171–179. doi: 10.111/j.1365-2818.2005.01469.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Timock AM, Cook V, McDonald T, Leo MC, Crowe J, Benninger BL, Covell DA Jr (2011) Accuracy and reliability of buccal bone height and thickness measurements from cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 140:734–744. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.021 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Vandenberghe B, Luchsinger S, Hostens J, Dhoore E, Jacobs R; The SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium (2012) The influence of exposure parameters on jawbone model accuracy using cone beam computed tomography and multi-slice computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41:466-474. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/81272805 Google Scholar