Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing different planimetric methods on volumetric estimations by using cone beam computed tomography

  • COMPUTER APPLICATION
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of the planimetric methods on volume estimations by using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Materials and methods

Thirty-one prepared intraosseous bone defects from thirteen bovine femur condyles were scanned with CBCT. The defect volumes were estimated by point counting (PC), manual segmentation (MS) and semiautomatic segmentation (SAS) methods at 0.3-mm section thickness without any intersection gap. The estimated volumes were compared with the results of the Archimedes’ method. The planimetric methods were analyzed using a Friedman’s two-way analysis of variance test.

Results

The estimated volumes of MS and SAS methods were compatible with the volumes of Archimedes’ method (p = 0.768, p = 0.140, respectively), but the volumes from the PC method were not compatible with Archimedes’ method (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

SAS was approximately 2.5 times faster than MS. Both MS and SAS are valid methods for volume estimation; however, SAS may be preferred due to its practicability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scarfe WC, Farman AG (2008) What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin N Am 52:707–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Oh SH, Kang JH, Seo YK, Lee SR, Choi HY, Choi YS et al (2018) Linear accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography and a 3-dimensional facial scanning system: an anthropomorphic phantom study. Imaging Sci Dent 48:111–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Koç A (2018) Comparison of the horizontal condyle angle of the dentulous and edentulous patients using cone beam computed tomography. East J Med 23:254–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Oberoi S, Chigurupati R, Gill P, Hoffman WY, Vargervik K (2009) Volumetric assessment of secondary alveolar bone grafting using cone beam computed tomography. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 46:503–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sezgin OS, Kayıpmaz S, Sahin B (2013) The effect of slice thickness on the assessment of bone defect volumes by the Cavalieri principle using cone beam computed tomography. J Digit Imaging 26:115–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kayipmaz S, Sezgin OS, Saricaoğlu ST, Bas O, Sahin B, Küçük M (2011) The estimation of the volume of sheep mandibular defects using cone-beam computed tomography images and a stereological method. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 40:165–169

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bayram M, Kayipmaz S, Sezgin OS, Küçük M (2012) Volumetric analysis of the mandibular condyle using cone beam computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 81:1812–1816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Agbaje JO, Jacobs R, Maes F, Michiels K, Van Steenberghe D (2007) Volumetric analysis of extraction sockets using cone beam computed tomography: a pilot study on ex vivo jaw bone. J Clin Periodontol 34:985–990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Clatterbuck RE, Sipos EP (1997) The efficient calculation of neurosurgically relevant volumes from computed tomographic scans using Cavalieri’s direct estimator. Neurosurgery 40:339–343

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mazonakis M, Damilakis J, Varveris H (1998) Bladder and rectum volume estimations using CT and stereology. Comput Med Imaging Graph 22:195–201

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sahin B, Ergur H (2006) Assessment of the optimum section thickness for the estimation of liver volume using magnetic resonance images: a stereological gold standard study. Eur J Radiol 57:96–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gong QY, Tan LT, Romaniuk CS, Jones B, Brunt JN, Roberts N (1999) Determination of tumour regression rates during radiotherapy for cervical carcinoma by serial MRI: comparison of two measurement techniques and examination of intraobserver and interobserver variability. Br J Radiol 72:62–72

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kong Z, Li T, Luo J, Xu S (2019) Automatic tissue image segmentation based on image processing and deep learning. J Healthc Eng 2019:2912458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chu C-C, Aggarwal JK (1993) The integration of image segmentation maps using region and edge information. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 15:1241–1252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sahin B, Emirzeoglu M, Uzun A, Incesu L, Bek Y, Bilgic S et al (2003) Unbiased estimation of the liver volume by the Cavalieri principle using magnetic resonance images. Eur J Radiol 47:164–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. De Faria Vasconcelos K, Evangelista KM, Rodrigues C, Estrela C, De Sousa TO, Silva MA (2012) Detection of periodontal bone loss using cone beam CT and intraoral radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41:64–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Koç A, Kavut İ, Uğur M (2019) Assessment of buccal bone thickness in the anterior maxilla: a cone beam computed tomography study. Cumhur Dent J 22:102–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Acer N, Sahin B, Usanmaz M, Tatoğlu H, Irmak Z (2008) Comparison of point counting and planimetry methods for the assessment of cerebellar volume in human using magnetic resonance imaging: a stereological study. Surg Radiol Anat 30:335–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rana M, Modrow D, Keuchel J, Chui C, Rana M, Wagner M et al (2015) Development and evaluation of an automatic tumor segmentation tool: a comparison between automatic, semi-automatic and manual segmentation of mandibular odontogenic cysts and tumors. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 43:355–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pauwels R, Nackaerts O, Bellaiche N, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A et al (2013) Variability of dental cone beam CT grey values for density estimations. Br J Radiol 86:20120135

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer SR, Mupparapu M (2015) CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 44:20140238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bastami F, Shahab S, Parsa A, Abbas FM, Noori Kooshki MH, Namdari M et al (2018) Can gray values derived from CT and cone beam CT estimate new bone formation? An in vivo study. Oral Maxillofac Surg 22:13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Albuquerque MA, Gaia BF, Cavalcanti MG (2011) Comparison between multislice and cone-beam computerized tomography in the volumetric assessment of cleft palate. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol 112:249–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ahlowalia MS, Patel S, Anwar HM, Cama G, Austin RS, Wilson R et al (2013) Accuracy of CBCT for volumetric measurement of simulated periapical lesions. Int Endod J 46:538–546

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Forst D, Nijjar S, Flores-Mir C, Carey J, Secanell M, Lagravere M (2014) Comparison of in vivo 3D cone-beam computed tomography tooth volume measurement protocols. Prog Orthod 15:69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Xi T, Schreurs R, Heerink WJ, Bergé SJ, Maal TJ (2014) A novel region-growing based semi-automatic segmentation protocol for three-dimensional condylar reconstruction using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). PLoS ONE 9:e111126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Acer N, Ilıca AT, Turgut AT, Özçelik Ö, Yıldırım B, Turgut M (2012) Comparison of three methods for the estimation of pineal gland volume using magnetic resonance imaging. Sci World J 2012:123412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bolat D, Bahar S, Tipirdamaz S, Selcuk M (2013) Comparison of the morphometric features of the left and right horse kidneys: a stereological approach. Anat Histol Embryol 42:448–452

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Sahin B, Acer N, Sonmez O, Emirzeoglu M, Basaloglu H, Uzun A et al (2007) Comparison of four methods for the estimation of intracranial volume: a gold standard study. Clin Anat 20:766–773

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Schulze R, Heil U, Groβ D, Bruellmann D, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U et al (2011) Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 40:265–273

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, 65080, Van, Turkey

    Alaettin Koç

  2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey

    Ömer Said Sezgin & Saadettin Kayıpmaz

Authors
  1. Alaettin Koç
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ömer Said Sezgin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saadettin Kayıpmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by AK, ÖSS and SK. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AK, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alaettin Koç.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koç, A., Sezgin, Ö.S. & Kayıpmaz, S. Comparing different planimetric methods on volumetric estimations by using cone beam computed tomography. Radiol med 125, 398–405 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-019-01131-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-019-01131-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation