Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지

Comparison of CT numbers between cone-beam CT and multi-detector CT

Cone-beam CT와 multi-detector CT영상에서 측정된 CT number에 대한 비교연구

  • Kim, Dong-Soo (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Han, Won-Jeong (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, Eun-Kyung (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Dankook University)
  • 김동수 (단국대학교 치과대학 구강악안면방사선학교실) ;
  • 한원정 (단국대학교 치과대학 구강악안면방사선학교실) ;
  • 김은경 (단국대학교 치과대학 구강악안면방사선학교실)
  • Received : 2010.05.15
  • Accepted : 2010.05.28
  • Published : 2010.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : To compare the CT numbers on 3 cone-beam CT (CBCT) images with those on multi-detector CT (MDCT) image using CT phantom and to develop linear regressive equations using CT numbers to material density for all the CT scanner each. Materials and Methods : Mini CT phantom comprised of five 1 inch thick cylindrical models with 1.125 inches diameter of materials with different densities (polyethylene, polystyrene, plastic water, nylon and acrylic) was used. It was scanned in 3 CBCTs (i-CAT, Alphard VEGA, Implagraphy SC) and 1 MDCT (Somatom Emotion). The images were saved as DICOM format and CT numbers were measured using OnDemand 3D. CT numbers obtained from CBCTs and MDCT images were compared and linear regression analysis was performed for the density, $\rho$ ($g/cm^3$), as the dependent variable in terms of the CT numbers obtained from CBCTs and MDCT images. Results : CT numbers on i-CAT and Implagraphy CBCT images were smaller than those on Somatom Emotion MDCT image (p<0.05). Linear relationship on a range of materials used for this study were $\rho$=0.001H+1.07 with $R^2$ value of 0.999 for Somatom Emotion, $\rho$=0.002H+1.09 with $R^2$ value of 0.991 for Alphard VEGA, $\rho$=0.001H+1.43 with $R^2$ value of 0.980 for i-CAT and $\rho$=0.001H+1.30 with $R^2$ value of 0.975 for Implagraphy. Conclusion: CT numbers on i-CAT and Implagraphy CBCT images were not same as those on Somatom Emotion MDCT image. The linear regressive equations to determine the density from the CT numbers with very high correlation coefficient were obtained on three CBCT and MDCT scan.

Keywords

References

  1. Cann CE. Quantitative CT for determination of bone mineral density: a review. Radiology 1988; 166 : 509-22. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.166.2.3275985
  2. Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Dus I, et al. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. Quantitative conebeam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20 : 416-24.
  3. Mull RT. Mass estimates by computed tomography: physical density from CT numbers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984; 143 : 1101-4. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.143.5.1101
  4. Arai Y, Tammisalo E, Iwai K, Hashimoto K, Shinoda K. Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28 : 245-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600448
  5. De Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen GR. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 38 : 609-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2009.02.028
  6. Patel S. New dimensions in endodontic imaging: Part 2. Cone beam computed tomography. Int Endod J 2009; 42 : 463-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01531.x
  7. Patel S, Dawood A, Mannocci F, Wilson R, Pitt Ford T. Detection of periapical bone defects in human jaws using cone beam computed tomography and intraoral radiography. Int Endod J 2009; 42 : 507-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01538.x
  8. van Vlijmen OJ, Berge SJ, Swennen GR, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Comparison of cephalometric radiographs obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans and conventional radiographs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67 : 92-7.
  9. Norton MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12 : 79-84. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012001079.x
  10. Misch CE. Bone density: a key determinant for treatment planning. In Misch CE, editor. Contemporary implant dentistry. ed 3. St Louis: Mosby-Year Book; 2008. p. 137-8.
  11. de Oliveira RC, Leles CR, Normanha LM, Lindh C, Ribeiro-Rotta RF. Assessments of trabecular bone density at implant sites on CT images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105 : 231-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.08.007
  12. Turkyilmaz I, Tumer C, Ozbek EN, Tozum TF. Relations between the bone density values from computerized tomography, and implant stability parameters: a clinical study of 230 regular platform implants. J Clin Periodontol 2007; 34 : 716-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01112.x
  13. Turkyilmaz I, Tozum TF, Tumer C, Ozbek EN. Assessment of correlation between computerized tomography values of the bone, and maximum torque and resonance frequency values at dental implant placement. J Oral Rehabil 2006; 33 : 881-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01692.x
  14. Shahlaie M, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Crigger M. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 1. Quantitative computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18 : 224-31.
  15. Turkyilmaz I, Tozum TF, Tumer C. Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography. J Oral Rehabil 2007; 34 : 267-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01689.x
  16. Beer A, Gahleitner A, Holm A, Tschabitscher M, Homolka P. Correlation of insertion torques with bone mineral density from dental quantitative CT in the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14 : 616-20. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00932.x
  17. Turkyilmaz I, Sennerby L, McGlumphy EA, Tozum TF. Biomechanical aspects of primary implant stability: a human cadaver study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009; 11 : 113-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00097.x
  18. 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 : 290-7.
  19. Goo JG, Kim JS, Kim JD. Quantitative assessment of periimlant bone density (HU) on CBCT image. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2008; 38 : 1-5.
  20. Lagravere MO, Carey J, Ben-Zvi M, Packota GV, Major PW. Effect of object location on the density measurement and Hounsfield conversion in a NewTom 3G cone beam computed tomography unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37 : 305-8. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/65993482
  21. Lagravere MO, Fang Y, Carey J, Toogood RW, Packota GV, Major PW. Density conversion factor determined using a cone-beam computed tomography unit NewTom QR-DVT 9000. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35 : 407-9. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/55276404
  22. Han CW, Kim GT, Choi YS, Hwang EH. Image characteristics of cone beam computed tomography using a CT performance phantom. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2007; 37 : 157-63.
  23. Korean institute for accreditation of medical image. Quality assurance of CT equipment [Internet]. Seoul: c 2004. [updated 2007 March 30; cited 2009 April 1]. available from http://www.kiami.or.kr/자료실/품질관리자료실/CT품질관리검사안내서.pdf.
  24. Swennen GR, Schutyser F. Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130 : 410-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.11.035