Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography.

Oral Imaging Center, Faculty of Medicine, K.U. Leuven, Belgium.
Clinical Oral Implants Research (Impact Factor: 3.43). 08/2011; 22(8):873-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02076.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to evaluate the variability of intensity values in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging compared with multislice computed tomography Hounsfield units (MSCT HU) in order to assess the reliability of density assessments using CBCT images.
A quality control phantom was scanned with an MSCT scanner and five CBCT scanners. In one CBCT scanner, the phantom was scanned repeatedly in the same and in different positions. Images were analyzed using registration to a mathematical model. MSCT images were used as a reference.
Density profiles of MSCT showed stable HU values, whereas in CBCT imaging the intensity values were variable over the profile. Repositioning of the phantom resulted in large fluctuations in intensity values.
The use of intensity values in CBCT images is not reliable, because the values are influenced by device, imaging parameters and positioning.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Onlay bone grafts have a bad reputation of resorption with loss of contour and volume. Rigid fixation reduces the incidence of resorption but does not prevent it. Literature shows reduction of resorption by applying guided bone regeneration (GBR) barriers and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Investigating the effect of combining them together to reduce resorption was the aim of this study. This study included 4 groups: control group, GBR group, PRP group, and GBR + PRP group. Twenty rabbits were used (40 mandibular halves). Onlay bone grafts were fixed by titanium miniscrews in all groups. Computed tomography scans of harvested mandibles after euthanasia allowed calculations of bone graft volume and density. Onlay bone graft volumes in all experimental groups were significantly higher than in the control group. Volume maintenance in the GBR group was significantly higher than in the PRP group. There was no significant difference in the volume of onlay bone grafts between the group of combined GBR + PRP and GBR alone. It was concluded that, to maintain the volume of onlay bone grafts, either GBR or PRP can be added. Combining them did not add any advantage over the GBR alone.
    Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 10/2014; 25(6). DOI:10.1097/SCS.0000000000001043 · 0.68 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the trabecular bone microarchitecture and cortical bone morphology by using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) and dental cone-beam computed tomography (dental CT).
    PLoS ONE 09/2014; 9(9):e107545. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0107545 · 3.53 Impact Factor
    This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched format
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives The aim of this study was to reveal the three-dimensional fluctuation of voxel values in a uniform material placed inside a phantom simulating a human head when it was scanned with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for dental use. Methods We employed a cylindrical acrylic phantom to simulate a human head. Iodine solution, water, or air was placed inside the phantom, which was then scanned using CBCT. Regions of interest (ROIs) were set on the obtained CBCT images, and the mean voxel value in each ROI was measured. Finally, the profiles of the voxel values in the bottom-to-top (BT) and anterior-to-posterior (AP) directions in the field of view (FOV) were investigated. Results For the BT direction, the voxel values were almost constant regardless of the slice position (standard deviation: Conclusions Three-dimensional fluctuation of voxel values was evaluated for uniform scan targets on CBCT scanning. In the longitudinal direction, the voxel values were almost constant. However, in the axial plane, the fluctuation was so large that estimation from voxel values might not be reliable.
    Oral Radiology 09/2014; 30(3):226-235. DOI:10.1007/s11282-014-0169-1 · 0.15 Impact Factor