Three-dimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this article was to evaluate the accuracy of measurements made on 9- and 12-in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images compared with measurements made on a coordinate measuring machine (CMM), which is the gold standard. METHODS Ten markers were placed on a synthetic mandible, and landmark coordinates and linear and angular measurements were determined with the CMM. Three-dimensional CBCT images, measuring 9 and 12 in, were taken of the mandible with a CBCT machine (NewTom 3G, Aperio Services, Verona, Italy), and landmark coordinates and linear and angular measurements were obtained with AMIRA (Mercury Computer Systems, Berlin, Germany) software. RESULTS The coordinate intrareliability correlation coefficient was almost perfect between the 3-dimensional CBCT images and the CMM measurements. With the Student t test, we found no significant statistical difference between linear and angular measurements from the CMM and the NewTom 3G images, which differed less than 1 mm and 1 degrees , respectively. CONCLUSIONS The NewTom 3G produces a 1-to-1 image-to-reality ratio.

[1]  J. Posnick,et al.  Craniofacial skeletal measurements based on computed tomography: Part II. Normal values and growth trends. , 1992, The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.

[2]  U Welander,et al.  The effect of projection errors on cephalometric length measurements. , 1986, European journal of orthodontics.

[3]  James Mah,et al.  3-D volume imaging for dentistry: a new dimension. , 2003, Journal of the California Dental Association.

[4]  Yi-Jane Chen,et al.  The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. , 2004, The Angle orthodontist.

[5]  Haijo Jung,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of acquisition parameters in three-dimensional imaging with multidetector computed tomography using human skull phantom. , 2002, Journal of digital imaging.

[6]  C. Lascala,et al.  Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom). , 2004, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[7]  U. Welander,et al.  The effect of projection errors on angular measurements in cephalometry. , 1988, European Journal of Orthodontics.

[8]  E V Staab,et al.  A method for three-dimensional image reformation for quantitative cephalometric analysis. , 1989, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[9]  R K Gongloff,et al.  Rigid endosseous implants for orthodontic and orthopedic anchorage. , 1989, The Angle orthodontist.

[10]  M W Vannier,et al.  Quantitative analysis of spiral computed tomography for craniofacial clinical applications. , 1998, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[11]  P W Major,et al.  Landmark identification error in posterior anterior cephalometrics. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[12]  S Hassfeld,et al.  Semiautomated registration using new markers for assessing the accuracy of a navigation system. , 2002, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[13]  J Brief,et al.  Clinical indications for digital volume tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. , 2002, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[14]  J. Posnick,et al.  Craniofacial skeletal measurements based on computed tomography. , 1993, The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.

[15]  S. Brooks,et al.  Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. , 2006, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[16]  Making sense of cephalometrics. , 1997, The Angle orthodontist.

[17]  Allan G Farman,et al.  Accuracy of linear temporomandibular joint measurements with cone beam computed tomography and digital cephalometric radiography. , 2005, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[18]  R. Verbeeck,et al.  The clinical significance of error measurement in the interpretation of treatment results. , 2001, European journal of orthodontics.