Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomography-derived surface models of different voxel sizes.

INTRODUCTION The aims of this study were to determine the linear accuracy of 3-dimensional surface models derived from a commercially available cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) dental imaging system and volumetric rendering software and to investigate the influence of voxel resolution on the linear accuracy of CBCT surface models. METHODS Glass sphere markers were fixed on 10 dry mandibles. The mandibles were scanned with 0.40 and 0.25 voxel size resolutions in 3 sessions. Anatomic truth was established with 6 direct digital caliper measurements. The surface models were rendered by a volumetric rendering program, and the CBCT measurements were established as the mean of the 3 measurements. RESULTS The intraclass correlation coefficients between the physical measurements and the measurements of the CBCT images of 0.40 and 0.25 voxels were all more than 0.99. All CBCT measurements were accurate. There was no difference between the accuracy of the measurements between the 0.40 and 0.25 voxel size groups. The smallest detectable differences of the CBCT measurements were minimal, confirming the accuracy of the CBCT measurement procedure. CONCLUSIONS The measurements on 3-dimensional surface models of 0.25 and 0.40 voxel size data sets made with the 3D eXam CBCT scanner (KaVo Dental GmbH, Bismarckring, Germany) and SimPlant Ortho Pro software (version 2.00, Materialise Dental, Leuven, Belgium) are accurate compared with direct caliper measurements. An increased voxel resolution did not result in greater accuracy of the surface model measurments.

[1]  G. Swennen,et al.  Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. , 2009, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[2]  D. Gor,et al.  Radiologic differentiation of intraocular glass: evaluation of imaging techniques, glass types, size, and effect of intraocular hemorrhage. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  John W Ballrick,et al.  Image distortion and spatial resolution of a commercially available cone-beam computed tomography machine. , 2008, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

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

[5]  Manuel O Lagravère,et al.  Three-dimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images. , 2008, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[6]  Filip Schutyser,et al.  Three-dimensional cephalometry : a color atlas and manual , 2006 .

[7]  P. Dijkstra,et al.  Smallest detectable difference of maximal mouth opening in patients with painfully restricted temporomandibular joint function. , 2000, European journal of oral sciences.

[8]  Gabriela Salatino Liedke,et al.  Influence of voxel size in the diagnostic ability of cone beam tomography to evaluate simulated external root resorption. , 2009, Journal of endodontics.

[9]  Demetrios J Halazonetis,et al.  From 2-dimensional cephalograms to 3-dimensional computed tomography scans. , 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.

[10]  Filip Schutyser,et al.  From 3-D Volumetric Computer Tomography to 3-D Cephalometry , 2006 .

[11]  Bassam Hassan,et al.  Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. , 2009, European journal of orthodontics.

[12]  P. Dijkstra,et al.  Smallest Detectable Difference in Outcome Variables Related to Painful Restriction of the Temporomandibular Joint , 1999, Journal of dental research.

[13]  Allan G Farman,et al.  Linear accuracy of cone beam CT derived 3D images. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[14]  S Hassfeld,et al.  Geometric accuracy of the NewTom 9000 Cone Beam CT. , 2005, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[15]  S A Stratemann,et al.  Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures. , 2008, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[16]  Erwin Keeve,et al.  Geometric accuracy of a newly developed cone-beam device for maxillofacial imaging. , 2007, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[17]  H. Inohara,et al.  A rare case of a glass foreign body in the parapharyngeal space: pre-operative assessment by contrast-enhanced CT and three-dimensional CT images. , 2009, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[18]  Danielle R. Periago,et al.  Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. , 2008, The Angle orthodontist.

[19]  J Mühling,et al.  Geometric accuracy of digital volume tomography and conventional computed tomography. , 2008, The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery.

[20]  H M Pinsky,et al.  Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements using cone-beam CT. , 2006, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[21]  Alex Jacobson,et al.  Radiographic Cephalometry: From Basics to 3-d Imaging , 2006 .