A comparative evaluation of cone beam CT and micro-CT on trabecular bone structures in the human mandible.

OBJECTIVES The main purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of cone beam CT (CBCT) in measuring the trabecular bone microstructure, in comparison with micro-CT. The subobjective was to examine to what extent bone quality assessment is influenced by X-ray tube current and voltage settings as well as soft tissue surrounding the bone. METHODS Eight human mandibular bone samples were scanned using three different clinical exposure protocol within water (W1-3) and without water (NW1-3) by a high-resolution (80 µm) CBCT machine (3D Accuitomo 170(®); Morita, Kyoto, Japan). Subsequently, the samples underwent micro-CT scanning (SkyScan 1174®; SkyScan, Antwerp, Belgium). After image acquisition, similar volumes of interest of the trabecular structures captured with CBCT and micro-CT were aligned with each other. Segmentation was then performed, and the morphometric parameters were quantified within the volumes of interest by CTAn software (CTAnalyser(®); SkyScan, Antwerp, Belgium). Descriptive statistical analyses and multiple comparisons between all protocols were applied in R software. RESULTS High positive Pearson's correlation coefficients were observed between CBCT and micro-CT protocols for all tested morphometric indices except for trabecular thickness. No significant differences were observed between all exposure protocols except for trabecular separation. When examining the soft-tissue effect on trabecular bone structures, no significant differences between NW (1-3) and W (1-3) protocols were observed for all variables. CONCLUSIONS The present study demonstrated the potential of high-resolution CBCT imaging for in vivo applications of quantitative bone morphometry and bone quality assessment. However, the overestimation of morphometric parameters and acquisition settings in CBCT must be taken into account.

[1]  C. Lindh,et al.  Bone tissue microarchitectural characteristics at dental implant sites. Part 1: identification of clinical-related parameters. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[2]  Ralph Müller,et al.  Guidelines for assessment of bone microstructure in rodents using micro–computed tomography , 2010, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[3]  Daniel Chappard,et al.  Comparison Insight Bone Measurements by Histomorphometry and μCT , 2005 .

[4]  D. Dance,et al.  Comparison of Different Materials for Test Phantoms in Diagnostic Radiology , 1993 .

[5]  Guy Marchal,et al.  Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[6]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Title Assessment of trabecular bone structure using MDCT : comparison of 64-and 320-slice CT using HR-pQCT as the reference standard Permalink , 2010 .

[7]  Harrie Weinans,et al.  An Improved Segmentation Method for In Vivo μCT Imaging , 2004 .

[8]  R Schulze,et al.  Artefacts in CBCT: a review. , 2011, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[9]  Lee W Goldman,et al.  Principles of CT: Radiation Dose and Image Quality* , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

[10]  A. Katsumata,et al.  Image artifact in dental cone-beam CT. , 2006, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[11]  E. Ariji,et al.  Morphometric analysis of mandibular trabecular bone using cone beam computed tomography: an in vitro study. , 2010, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[12]  M. Kleerekoper,et al.  Relationships between surface, volume, and thickness of iliac trabecular bone in aging and in osteoporosis. Implications for the microanatomic and cellular mechanisms of bone loss. , 1983, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[13]  Nicholas Pleace,et al.  The housing needs of disabled people. , 1998, Health & social care in the community.

[14]  P. Rüegsegger,et al.  Morphometric analysis of human bone biopsies: a quantitative structural comparison of histological sections and micro-computed tomography. , 1998, Bone.

[15]  Thorsten M. Buzug,et al.  A Validation Framework for Head-Motion Artifacts in Dental Cone-Beam CT , 2009 .

[16]  M. Drezner,et al.  Bone histomorphometry: Standardization of nomenclature, symbols, and units: Report of the asbmr histomorphometry nomenclature committee , 1987, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[17]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Development and applicability of a quality control phantom for dental cone‐beam CT , 2011, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[18]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Impact of spatial resolution on the prediction of trabecular architecture parameters. , 1998, Bone.

[19]  C L Benhamou,et al.  Assessment of trabecular bone microarchitecture by two different x-ray microcomputed tomographs: a comparative study of the rat distal tibia using Skyscan and Scanco devices. , 2009, Medical physics.