Abstract
This study uses a general formulation of integrated visual grading regression (IVGR) and applies it to cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan data related to anatomical landmarks for dental implantology. The aim was to assess and predict a minimum acceptable dose for diagnostic imaging and reporting. A skull phantom was imaged with a CBCT unit at various diagnostic exposures. Key anatomical landmarks within the images were independently reviewed by three trained observers. Each provided an overall image quality score. Statistical analysis was carried out to examine the acceptability of the images taken, using an IVGR analysis that was formulized as a three-stage protocol including defining an integrated score, development of an ordinal regression, and investigation of the possibility for dose reduction through estimated parameters. For a unit increase in the logarithm of radiation dose, the odds ratio that the integrated score for an image assessed by observers being rated in a higher category was 3.940 (95% confidence interval: 1.016–15.280). When assessed by the observers, the minimum dose required to achieve a 75% probability for an image to be classified as at least acceptable was 1346.91 mGy·cm2 dose area product (DAP), a 31% reduction compared to the 1962 mGy·cm2 DAP default dosage of the CBCT unit. The kappa values of the intra and inter-observer reliability indicated moderate agreements, while a discrepancy among observers was also identified because each, as expected, perceived visibility differently. The results of this work demonstrate the IVGR’s predictive value of dose saving in the effort to reduce dose to patients while maintaining reportable diagnostic image quality.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- ALQ:
-
Anatomical landmark question
- ANOVA:
-
Analysis of variance
- Az:
-
Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve
- CBCT:
-
Cone beam computed tomography
- CI:
-
Confidence interval
- CT:
-
Computed tomography
- DAP:
-
Dose area product
- DICOM:
-
Digital imaging and communications in medicine
- EAO:
-
European Association of Osseointegration
- Eq.:
-
Equation
- exp:
-
Exponential function
- FOV:
-
Field of view
- IIQ:
-
Integrated image quality
- IVGR:
-
Integrated visual grading regression
- kVp:
-
Peak kilovoltage
- LF:
-
Lingual foramen
- ln:
-
Natural logarithm
- mA:
-
Milliampere
- MC:
-
Mandibular canal
- MF:
-
Mental foramen
- mGy·cm2 :
-
Milligray times square centimeter
- MRI:
-
Magnetic resonance imaging
- OIQ:
-
Overall image quality
- ROC:
-
Receiver operating characteristic
- RT:
-
Right-side
- sd:
-
Standard deviation
- SE:
-
Standard error
- VGA:
-
Visual grading analysis
- VGAS:
-
Visual grading analysis score
- VGC:
-
Visual grading characteristic
- VGR:
-
Visual grading regression
References
Agresti A (2007) An introduction to categorical data analysis. Wiley, New York
Agresti A (2010) Analysis of ordinal categorical data. Wiley, Hoboken
Alawaji Y, MacDonald DS, Giannelis G, Ford NL (2018) Optimization of cone beam computed tomography image quality in implant dentistry. Clin Exp Dent Res 4:268–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.141
Al-Humairi A, Zheng X, Ip HL, El Masoud B (2016) Radiation dose image quality optimization in dental implantology. In: International conference on applied mathematics, simulation and modelling. Atlantis Press, Beijing, pp 403–406. https://doi.org/10.2991/amsm-16.2016.90
Al-Humairi A, Zheng X, Ip RHL, El Masoud B (2016) Computed tomography image quality evaluation for pre-surgical dental implant site assessment using different exposure setting protocols: mandibular phantom study. In: 4th IIAE international conference on intelligent systems and image processing. The Institute of Industrial Applications Engineers, Japan, pp 300–305. https://doi.org/10.12792/icisip2016.053
Ali S, Ali A, Khan SA, Hussain S (2016) Sufficient sample size and power in multilevel ordinal logistic regression models. Comput Math Methods Med 2016:7329158. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7329158
Almashraqi AA, Ahmed EA, Mohamed NS, Barngkgei IH, Elsherbini NA, Halboub ES (2017) Evaluation of different low-dose multidetector CT and cone beam CT protocols in maxillary sinus imaging: part I-an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 46:20160323. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160323
Anderson PJ, Yong R, Surman TL, Rajion ZA, Ranjitkar S (2014) Application of three-dimensional computed tomography in craniofacial clinical practice and research. Aust Dent J 59(Suppl 1):174–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12154
Attard S, Castillo J, Zarb F (2018) Establishment of image quality for MRI of the knee joint using a list of anatomical criteria. Radiography (lond) 24:196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2018.01.008
Barrett HH, Myers KJ, Hoeschen C, Kupinski MA, Little MP (2015) Task-based measures of image quality and their relation to radiation dose and patient risk. Phys Med Biol 60:R1–R75. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/2/r1
Båth M, Månsson LG (2007) Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Br J Radiol 80:169–176. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/35012658
Bauer DJ, Sterba SK (2011) Fitting multilevel models with ordinal outcomes: performance of alternative specifications and methods of estimation. Psychol Methods 16:373–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025813
Bidra AS (2017) Surgical safety checklist for dental implant and related surgeries. J Prosthet Dent 118:442–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.02.019
Carter L, Farman AG, Geist J, Scarfe WC, Angelopoulos C, Nair MK, Hildebolt CF, Tyndall D, Shrout M (2008) American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology executive opinion statement on performing and interpreting diagnostic cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:561–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.07.007
Christensen RHB. (2015) Analysis of ordinal data with cumulative link models—estimation with the R-package ordinal. https://mran.microsoft.com/snapshot/2017-12-11/web/packages/ordinal/vignettes/clm_intro.pdf
Christensen RHB (2019) A tutorial on fitting cumulative link mixed models with clmm2 from the ordinal package. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ordinal/vignettes/clmm2_tutorial.pdf
Dawood A, Brown J, Sauret-Jackson V, Purkayastha S (2012) Optimization of cone beam CT exposure for pre-surgical evaluation of the implant site. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41:70–74. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/16421849
Dow JK, Endersby JW (2004) Multinomial probit and multinomial logit: a comparison of choice models for voting research. Elect Stud 23:107–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3794(03)00040-4
Drikvandi R, Noorian S (2019) Testing random effects in linear mixed-effects models with serially correlated errors. Biom J 61:802–812. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201700203
Favazza CP, Fetterly KA, Hangiandreou NJ, Leng S, Schueler BA (2015) Implementation of a channelized Hotelling observer model to assess image quality of x-ray angiography systems. J Med Imaging (bellingham) 2:015503. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jmi.2.1.015503
Froum S, Casanova L, Byrne S, Cho SC (2011) Risk assessment before extraction for immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: a computerized tomographic scan study. J Periodontol 82:395–402. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2010.100360
Goto TK, Nishida S, Nakamura Y, Tokumori K, Nakamura Y, Kobayashi K, Yoshida Y, Yoshiura K (2007) The accuracy of 3-dimensional magnetic resonance 3D vibe images of the mandible: an in vitro comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103:550–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.03.011
Harris D, Horner K, Gröndahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E, Benic GI, Bornstein MM, Dawood A, Quirynen M (2012) E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical University of Warsaw. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:1243–1253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02441.x
Hedeker D, Gibbons RD (1994) A random-effects ordinal regression model for multilevel analysis. Biometrics 50:933–944. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533433
Heetveld MJ, Raaymakers EL, van Walsum AD, Barei DP, Steller EP (2005) Observer assessment of femoral neck radiographs after reduction and dynamic hip screw fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125:160–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-004-0780-4
Hidalgo Rivas JA, Horner K, Thiruvenkatachari B, Davies J, Theodorakou C (2015) Development of a low-dose protocol for cone beam CT examinations of the anterior maxilla in children. Br J Radiol 88:20150559. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150559
Hidalgo-Rivas JA, Theodorakou C, Carmichael F, Murray B, Payne M, Horner K (2014) Use of cone beam CT in children and young people in three United Kingdom dental hospitals. Int J Paediatr Dent 24:336–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12076
Hofmann E, Schmid M, Lell M, Hirschfelder U (2014) Cone beam computed tomography and low-dose multislice computed tomography in orthodontics and dentistry. J Orofac Orthop 75:384–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-014-0232-x
Jones A, Ansell C, Jerrom C, Honey ID (2015) Optimization of image quality and patient dose in radiographs of paediatric extremities using direct digital radiography. Br J Radiol 88:20140660. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140660
Kadesjö N, Benchimol D, Falahat B, Näsström K, Shi X-Q (2015) Evaluation of the effective dose of cone beam CT and multislice CT for temporomandibular joint examinations at optimized exposure levels. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 44:20150041. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150041
Kim M-J, Lee S-S, Choi M, Yong HS, Lee C, Kim J-E, Heo M-S (2020) Developing evidence-based clinical imaging guidelines of justification for radiographic examination after dental implant installation. BMC Med Imaging 20:102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-020-00501-3
Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Nizam A, Muller KE (2007) Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. Duxbury Press, Belmont
Koizumi H, Sur J, Seki K, Nakajima K, Sano T, Okano T (2010) Effects of dose reduction on multi-detector computed tomographic images in evaluating the maxilla and mandible for pre-surgical implant planning: a cadaveric study. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:830–834. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01925.x
Krantz J (2012) Experiencing sensation and perception. Pearson Education, Ltd., Upper Saddle River
Kundel HL (2015) Visual search and lung nodule detection on CT scans. Radiology 274:14–16. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14142247
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lee KC, Bamford A, Gardiner F, Agovino A, ter Horst B, Bishop J, Sitch A, Grover L, Logan A, Moiemen NS (2019) Investigating the intra- and inter-rater reliability of a panel of subjective and objective burn scar measurement tools. Burns 45:1311–1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2019.02.002
Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, Couto Souza P, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.042
Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 22:1–55
Liu LC, Hedeker D (2006) A mixed-effects regression model for longitudinal multivariate ordinal data. Biometrics 62:261–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00408.x
Lofthag-Hansen S, Thilander-Klang A, Gröndahl K (2011) Evaluation of subjective image quality in relation to diagnostic task for cone beam computed tomography with different fields of view. Eur J Radiol 80:483–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.09.018
Månsson LG (2000) Methods for the evaluation of image quality: a review. Radiat Prot Dosim 90:89–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a033149
Metz CE (1989) Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Invest Radiol 24:234–245. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004424-198903000-00012
Mraity H, England A, Hogg P (2014) Developing and validating a psychometric scale for image quality assessment. Radiography 20:306–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2014.04.002
Nemtoi A, Czink C, Haba D, Gahleitner A (2013) Cone beam CT: a current overview of devices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 42:20120443. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120443
Park H-N, Min C-K, Kim K-A, Koh K-J. (2019) Optimization of exposure parameters and relationship between subjective and technical image quality in cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent 49: 139–151. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2019.49.2.139
Pittayapat P, Galiti D, Huang Y, Dreesen K, Schreurs M, Couto Souza P, Rubira-Bullen IRF, Westphalen FH, Pauwels R, Kalema G, Willems G, Jacobs R (2013) An in vitro comparison of subjective image quality of panoramic views acquired via 2D or 3D imaging. Clin Oral Investig 17:293–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0698-0
Powers D, Xie Y (2008) Statistical methods for categorical data analysis. Bingley, Emerald
Prasad SR, Wittram C, Shepard JA, McLoud T, Rhea J (2002) Standard-dose and 50%-reduced-dose chest CT: comparing the effect on image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:461–465. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.2.1790461
R Core Team (2020) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. www.r-project.org.
Rios HF, Borgnakke WS, Benavides E (2017) The use of cone-beam computed tomography in management of patients requiring dental implants: an American Academy of Periodontology best evidence review. J Periodontol 88:946–959. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2017.160548
Rossmann K, Wiley BE (1970) The central problem in the study of radiographic image quality. Radiology 96:113–118. https://doi.org/10.1148/96.1.113
Saffari SE, Löve Á, Fredrikson M, Smedby Ö (2015) Regression models for analyzing radiological visual grading studies – an empirical comparison. BMC Med Imaging 15:49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-015-0083-y
Sakata-Goto T, Takahashi K, Kiso H, Huang B, Tsukamoto H, Takemoto M, Hayashi T, Sugai M, Nakamura T, Yokota Y, Shimizu A, Slavkin H, Bessho K (2012) Id2 controls chondrogenesis acting downstream of BMP signaling during maxillary morphogenesis. Bone 50:69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2011.09.049
Schaefferkoetter JD, Yan J, Townsend DW, Conti M (2015) Initial assessment of image quality for low-dose PET: evaluation of lesion detectability. Phys Med Biol 60:5543–5556. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/14/5543
SEDENTEXCT (2012) Radiation Protection No. 172—cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology (evidence-based guidelines). https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/172.pdf
Shelley AM, Brunton P, Horner K (2011) Subjective image quality assessment of cross sectional imaging methods for the symphyseal region of the mandible prior to dental implant placement. J Dent 39:764–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.08.008
Smedby Ö, Fredrikson M (2010) Visual grading regression: analysing data from visual grading experiments with regression models. Br J Radiol 83:767–775. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/35254923
Smedby Ö, Fredrikson M, De Geer J, Borgen L, Sandborg M (2013) Quantifying the potential for dose reduction with visual grading regression. Br J Radiol 86:31197714–31197714. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/31197714
Spuur K (2019) A review of mammographic lesion localisation and work up imaging in Australia in the digital era. Radiography 25:385–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2019.03.002
Sund P, Båth M, Kheddache S, Månsson LG (2004) Comparison of visual grading analysis and determination of detective quantum efficiency for evaluating system performance in digital chest radiography. Eur Radiol 14:48–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-1971-z
Tanny L, Huang B, Naung NY, Currie G (2018) Non-orthodontic intervention and non-nutritive sucking behaviours: a literature review. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 34:215–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2018.01.006
Thornbury JR, Fryback DG, Patterson FE, Chiavarini RL (1978) Effect of screen/film combinations on diagnostic certainty: Hi-Plus/RPL versus Lanex/Ortho G in excretory urography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 130:83–87. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.130.1.83
Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Yang J (2007) Diagnostic validity (or acuity) of 2D CCD versus 3D CBCT-images for assessing periodontal breakdown. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104:395–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.03.012
Zanca F, Van Ongeval C, Claus F, Jacobs J, Oyen R, Bosmans H (2012) Comparison of visual grading and free-response ROC analyses for assessment of image-processing algorithms in digital mammography. Br J Radiol 85:e1233–e1241. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/22608279
Zarb F, McEntee MF, Rainford L (2015) Visual grading characteristics and ordinal regression analysis during optimisation of CT head examinations. Insights Imaging 6:393–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-014-0374-9
Zheng X (2017) General equations for optimal selection of diagnostic image acquisition parameters in clinical X-ray imaging. Radiol Phys Technol 10:415–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-017-0413-6
Zheng X, Kim M, Yang S (2016) Optimal kVp in chest computed radiography using visual grading scores: a comparison between visual grading characteristics and ordinal regression analysis. In: Proceedings of the SPIE 9783, medical imaging 2016: physics of medical imaging, 97836A. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2217414
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Al-Humairi, A., Ip, R.H.L., Spuur, K. et al. Visual grading experiments and optimization in CBCT dental implantology imaging: preliminary application of integrated visual grading regression. Radiat Environ Biophys 61, 133–145 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-021-00959-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-021-00959-x