Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography in determining the location of the genial tubercle.

Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery (Impact Factor: 1.73). 08/2007; 137(1):115-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.otohns.2007.02.035
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CT) to predict the location of the genial tubercle.
Cadaver study for anatomic analysis of 17 adult human cadaver heads. Each skull/cadaver head underwent radiographic imaging with cone beam CT and cadaver dissection. Measurements, including mandibular height (MH), genial tubercle width (GTW), genial tubercle height (GTH), distance from inferior border of mandible to genial tubercle (IBM/GT), and mandibular thickness (MT) were recorded.
Statistical analysis with paired t test showed no significant difference between cadaver dissections versus cone beam measurements. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (CI) were as follows: GTW (-0.2 to 1.0), GTH (-0.1 to 0.9), distance IBM/GT (-0.8 to 5.0), MH (-1.3 to -2.6), and MT (-0.1 to 0.3).
These results show the accuracy of the 3D cone beam CT in the anatomic location of the genial tubercle.
This radiographic technique may prove useful in pre-operative planning for the mandibular osteotomy in genioglossus advancement procedures.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and reliability of linear measurements of edentulous ridges recorded from 16-row multidetector CT (MDCT) images and cone beam CT (CBCT) images acquired using a flat panel detector (FPD) with a large field of view (FOV), both independently and in comparison with each other. Edentulous areas of human dry skulls were marked with gutta-percha markers to standardize the plane of the transverse cross-sections and path of measurements. The skulls were imaged using a 16-row MDCT scanner and a CBCT device with a large FOV and a FPD. Ridge dimensions were recorded from reformatted sections by two observers and compared with measurements recorded directly from the bone. The measurement errors and intra and interexaminer reliability were calculated for each modality and compared with each other. The overall mean of the absolute errors was 0.75 mm for MDCT and 0.49 mm for CBCT. The mean of the CBCT absolute errors was smaller than that of the MDCT absolute errors for the overall data, as well as for the site-specific data. The intraexaminer reliability score was 0.994 for MDCT and 0.995 for CBCT. The interexaminer reliability was 0.985 for MDCT and 0.958 for CBCT. Both MDCT and CBCT were associated with a clinically and statistically significant measurement error. CBCT measurements were significantly more accurate than those of MDCT. The measurements recorded from both modalities had a high inter and intraexaminer reliability. Accuracy of measurements was found to be more operator dependent with CBCT than with MDCT.
    Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 02/2011; 40(2):67-75. · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Follow-ups of osseointegrated implants in the temporal bone have been limited to clinical stability and resonance frequency measurements. Standard computed tomographic scanning is restricted because of the high radiation doses to the brain and the presence of disturbing metal artifacts. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the use of cone beam computed tomography preoperatively and postoperatively. Prospective investigation of patients intended for implant surgery and patients participating in a follow-up protocol. Tertiary referral center. Patients with osseointegrated implants and patients intended for implants in the temporal bone for bone-anchored epistheses and bone conduction hearing devices were investigated by a 3-D Accuitomo cone beam computed tomography machine. Images in sagittal, coronal, and axial planes were obtained and analyzed in a personal computer. Preoperative and postoperative views were analyzed regarding implant integration, bone resorption, anatomic landmarks, and implant failure. Eighteen patients were included in the study. With the used technique, it was easy to detect air cells, the sigmoid sinus, and posterior fossa and to recommend an ideal implant installation site. Bone resorption, bone overgrowth, and implant connex to air cells and dura were easy to detect. Accuitomo cone beam tomography showed to be a reliable method for investigating osseointegrated implants in the temporal bone.
    Otology & neurotology: official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology 02/2011; 32(2):199-203. · 1.44 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy and reliability of 3-dimensional craniofacial measurements obtained from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of a dry human skull. Seventeen landmarks were identified on the skull. CBCT scans were then obtained, with 2 skull orientations during scanning. Twenty-nine interlandmark linear measurements were made directly on the skull and compared with the same measurements made on the CBCT scans. All measurements were made by 2 operators on 4 separate occasions. The method errors were 0.19, 0.21, and 0.19 mm in the x-, y- and z-axes, respectively. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed no significant intraoperator or interoperator differences. The mean measurement error was -0.01 mm (SD, 0.129 mm). Five measurement errors were found to be statistically significantly different; however, all measurement errors were below the known voxel size and clinically insignificant. No differences were found in the measurements from the 2 CBCT scan orientations of the skull. CBCT allows for clinically accurate and reliable 3-dimensional linear measurements of the craniofacial complex. Moreover, skull orientation during CBCT scanning does not affect the accuracy or the reliability of these measurements.
    American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics 08/2009; 136(1):17.e1-9; discussion 17-8. · 1.33 Impact Factor