Accuracy of densitometry of two cone beam computed tomography equipment in comparison with computed tomography
Keywords:
Cone-beam computed tomography, Spiral computed tomography, Urografin, DensitometryAbstract
Background: The use of oral implants has been growing, and cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) has become the method of choice for oral and maxillofacial radiology.
Objective: To assess the accuracy of bone densitometry in two different CBCT devices in comparison with MDCT (multi-detector CT).
Methods: Different concentrations of urografin, including 2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, 10%, 12.5%, were prepared, and the Hounsfield unit of these solution was measured by two CBCT devices (SORDEX CRANEX 3D and NEWTOM 5G) and one spiral CT device (SOMATOM SENSATION). Difference of output Hounsfield units in each concentration was compared in three devices. Correlation of devices with increase of urografin dose also was evaluated. Statistical analyses of the data were performed using SPSS18 and Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests, along with Spearman’s correlation coefficient.
Results: The range of gray density for NEWTOM 5G CBCT, SORDEX 3D CBCT, and SOMATOM CT imaging systems was from 781 to 2311, 427 to 1464, and 222 to 994, respectively. There was significant difference between devices in the Hounsfield unit in all urografin concentrations (p<0.001). Also there was a significant correlation between three devices with increasing the urografin dose (p<0.05; r>0.95)
Conclusion: Our findings indicated a high correlation and linear relationship between different studied imaging systems. Although utilizing CBCT in the assessment of bone density is useful according to its lower emitted dose and less cost, clinicians should be aware of the issue that the voxel value in CBCT is not as perfect as CT.
References
BouSerhal C, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. Imaging technique selection for the preoperative
planning of oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002; 4(3): 156-72.
PMID: 12516649.
Garg AK, Vicari A. Radiographic modalities for diagnosis and treatment planning in implant dentistry.
Implant Soc. 1995; 5(5): 7-11. PMID: 9571835.
Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Pacifici A, Pacifici L, Barbato E. How Accurate Is CBCT in Measuring Bone
Density? A Comparative CBCT-CT In Vitro Study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014; 16(4): 471-8. doi:
1111/cid.12027. PMID: 23294461.
Cassetta M, Di Mambro A, Giansanti M, Stefanelli LV, Cavallini C. The intrinsic error of a
stereolithographic surgical template in implant guided surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 42(2):
-75. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.06.010. PMID: 22789635.
Cassetta M, Giansanti M, Di Mambro A, Calasso S, Barbato E. Accuracy of two stereolithographic surgical
templates: a retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013; 15(3): 448-59. doi: 10.1111/j.1708- 8208.2011.00369.x. PMID: 21745330.
Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Di Carlo S, Pompa G, Barbato E. The accuracy of CBCT in measuring jaws
bone density. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012; 16(10): 1425-9. PMID: 23104660.
Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Giansanti M, Calasso S. Accuracy of implant placement with a
stereolithographic surgical template. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27(3): 655-63. PMID:
Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Giansanti M, Di Mambro A, Calasso S. Depth deviation and occurrence of early
surgical complications or unexpected events using a single stereolithographic surgi-guide. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 40(12): 1377-87. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2011.09.009. PMID: 22001378.
Shapurian T, Damoulis PD, Reiser GM, Griffin TJ, Rand WM. Quantitative evaluation of bone density
using the Hounsfield index. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006; 21(2): 290-7. PMID: 16634501.
Bernaerts A, Vanhoenacker FM, Chapelle K, Hintjens J, Parizel PM. The role of dental CT imaging in
dental implantology. JBR-BTR. 2006; 89(1): 32-42. PMID: 16607875.
Reddy MS, Mayfield-Donahoo T, Vanderven FJ, Jeffcoat MK. A comparison of the diagnostic advantages
of panoramic radiography and computed tomography scanning for placement of root form dental implants.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994; 5(4): 229-38. PMID: 7640337.
Sato S, Arai Y, Shinoda K, Ito K. Clinical application of a new cone-beam computerized tomography
system to assess multiple two-dimensional images for the preoperative treatment planning of maxillary
implants: case reports. Quintessence Int. 2004; 35(7): 525-8. PMID: 15259967.
Cassetta M, Della'quila D, Dolci A. Healing times after bone grafts. Dental Cadmos. 2008; 76(4): 27-36.
Cassetta M, Della'quila D, Dolci A. Reconstruction of atrophic alveolar ridge. Dental Cadmos. 2008; 76(6):
-27.
Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R. Analysis of intensity variability in
multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22(8): 873-9. doi:
1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02076.x. PMID: 21244502.
Nomura Y, Watanabe H, Honda E, Kurabayashi T. Reliability of voxel values from cone-beam computed
tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral density. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21(5): 558-62.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01896.x. PMID: 20443807.
Monsour PA, Dudhia R. Implant radiography and radiology. Aust Dent J. 2008; 53 Suppl 1: S11-25. doi:
1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00037.x. PMID: 18498579.
Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Loubele M, Schutyser F, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. State-of-the-art on cone
beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Investig. 2006; 10(1): 1-7.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-005-0031-2. PMID: 16482455.
Ito K, Gomi Y, Sato S, Arai Y, Shinoda K. Clinical application of a new compact CT system to assess 3-D
images for the preoperative treatment planning of implants in the posterior mandible A case report. Clin
Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12(5): 539-42. PMID: 11564116.
Yajima A, Otonari-Yamamoto M, Sano T, Hayakawa Y, Otonari T, Tanabe K, et al. Cone-beam CT (CB
Throne) applied to dentomaxillofacial region. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2006; 47(3): 133-41. PMID:
Casseta M, Tarantino F, Classo S. CAD-CAM systems in titanium customized abutment construction.
Dental Cadmos. 2010; 78(4): 27-44.
Arisan V, Karabuda ZC, Avsever H, Ozdemir T. Conventional multi-slice computed tomography (CT) and
cone-beam CT (CBCT) for computer-assisted implant placement. Part I: relationship of radiographic gray
density and implant stability. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013; 15(6): 893-906. doi: 10.1111/j.1708- 8208.2011.00436.x. PMID: 22251553.
Isoda K, Ayukawa Y, Tsukiyama Y, Sogo M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. Relationship between the bone
density estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and the primary stability of dental implants. Clin
Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23(7): 832-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02203.x. PMID: 21545533.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 KNOWLEDGE KINGDOM PUBLISHING
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
