Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology
Oral and maxillofacial radiologyGeometric accuracy of a newly developed cone-beam device for maxillofacial imaging
Section snippets
Imaging devices
Three-dimensional imaging data was acquired by the preretail version of a newly developed cone-beam system named GALILEOS (Sirona Dental Systems Inc., Bensheim, Germany). It consists of an x-ray generator and a two-dimensional detector aligned and mounted across from each other on a U arm. The radiation source/detector unit completes a 200° rotation around the patient’s head, acquiring 200 projected images. During the examination, the patient sits or stays in the rotation center. The position
Linear distance accuracy
Linear distance measurements revealed an average absolute error of 0.26 mm (±0.18 mm) for the CBCT scanner and of 0.18 mm (±0.17 mm) for the MDCT scanner. The paired t test showed no statistically significant difference in AME between both imaging modes (P = .196). The average APE was 0.98% (±0.73%) and 1.26% (±1.50%), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in APE between both techniques in the paired t test (P = .485) either. Linear regression analysis showed a
Discussion
Since specialized cone-beam devices for maxillofacial imaging represent a relatively new technology, there are few studies focusing on their geometric accuracy. Lascala et al.19 performed linear measurements on 13 distances between anatomical landmarks in dry human skulls scanned with the NewTom 9000 device (Quantitative Radiology, Verona, Italy). They concluded that the real distances measured on dry skulls were always larger than those obtained from the CBCT images. However, these differences
Conclusion
The evaluated CBCT device provides satisfactory information about linear distances and volumes. Multidetector row computed tomography scans proved slightly more accurate in both measurement categories. The difference between the imaging modes was statistically not significant for linear distance estimations. At the current development stage of the CBCT machine, conventional CT technique should be preferred for accuracy-sensitive geometric measurements of large distances (>10 cm, presumed
References (28)
- et al.
Effectiveness of dental computed tomography in diagnostic imaging of periradicular lesion of each root of a multirooted tooth: a case report
J Endod
(2006) - et al.
Preoperative application of limited cone beam computerized tomography as an assessment tool before minor oral surgery
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
(2002) - et al.
Postoperative imaging of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures using digital volume tomography
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
(2004) - et al.
Automated volumetry at CT colonography: a phantom study
Acad Radiol
(2005) - et al.
Image artifact in dental cone-beam CT
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(2006) - et al.
A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results
Eur Radiol
(1998) - et al.
Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use
Dentomaxillofac Radiol
(1999) - et al.
Clinical indications for digital volume tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery
Dentomaxillofac Radiol
(2002) - et al.
Intraoperative 3D imaging of the facial skeleton using the SIREMOBIL Iso-C3D
Dentomaxillofac Radiol
(2004) - et al.
Using a flat-panel detector in high resolution cone beam CT for dental imaging
Dentomaxillofac Radiol
(2004)
Digital volume tomography–an extension to the diagnostic procedures available for application before surgical removal of third molars
Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir
Cone beam CT for pre-surgical assessment of implant sites
J Calif Dent Assoc
Radiographic examination of the temporomandibular joint using cone beam computed tomography
Dentomaxillofac Radiol
Comparison of static and dynamic computer-assisted guidance methods in implantology
Int J Comput Dent
Cited by (162)
How to Avoid Errors When Using Navigation to Place Implants – A Narrative Review
2023, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryCitation Excerpt :Different CBCT scanners have different accuracies. Bone volume fraction, bone density, and trabecular bone thickness can vary from 0.26 to 0.5 mm when comparing CBCT scanners.2-5 Error of linear measures ranges from 0.54 mm to 2.56 mm.
Automated analysis of three-dimensional CBCT images taken in natural head position that combines facial profile processing and multiple deep-learning models
2022, Computer Methods and Programs in BiomedicineCitation Excerpt :In that case, operating time might increase by one or two minutes. Mischkowski et al. [40] mentioned that generally, landmark location on 3D CBCT images required greater time than in 2D X-ray images, firstly because prior training is necessary to familiarize with the different slices presented, and secondly because a first location on one of the planes and then a plotting on the other two is required for accuracy. It usually takes 15–20°min for detecting landmarks and analyzing a conventional 2D cephalogram depending on the quality of it, his/her experience, and the number of points considered in the method selected [36].
Long-term effects on alveolar bone with bone-anchored and tooth-anchored rapid palatal expansion
2022, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsComputational dosimetry in a pediatric i-CAT procedure using virtual anthropomorphic phantoms
2020, Radiation Physics and Chemistry