08Sep 2018

VALIDITY OF CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY VOXEL DENSITY VALUES: A REVIEW.

  • B.D.s, faculty of dentistry, ain shams university 2010, cairo, egypt.
  • Professor of oral radiology and diagnostic science faculty of dentistry, ain shams university, cairo, egypt.
  • Lecturer of oral radiology and diagnostic science, faculty of dentistry, ain shams university, cairo, egypt.
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

Introduction: voxel density value in CBCT is used regularly in many clinical aspects such as virtual implant planning. Many researchers studied factors affecting it and their significance. Most of the results obtained are contradicting and /or inconclusive. Objectives: to compile papers inquiring effect factors affecting voxel grey values and their significance. Methodology: internet search was done on two databases using MeSH terms. Resulting studies went through two level screening according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: A total of 27 studies were included. Total number of factors, which were tested in the included papers, were eighteen. Conclusion:Significantly affecting factors are (FOV, mA, Objects position inside the FOV, Objects exo-mass, kVp, time between exposure, number of basis, adjacent air to the ROI).Insignificantly affecting factors are (exposure parameters, software, exposure dose, presence of teeth, presence of metallic post in or out the FOV). Inconclusive factors are (Machines model, voxel size, objects mass, receptor type, exposure time). Grey levels in CBCT which is known by Hounsfield Unit of CBCT is not reliable nor repeatable.

  1. Valiyaparambil JV, Yamany I, Ortiz D, Shafer DM, Pendrys D, Freilich M, Mallya SM. Bone quality evaluation: comparison of cone beam computed tomography and subjective surgical assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27: 1271-1277.
  2. Mccreadie BR, Goldstein SA. Biomechanics of fracture: is bone mineral density sufficient to assess risk? Journal of bone and mineral research 2000; 15: 2305-2308.
  3. Ammann P, Rizzoli R. Bone strength and its determinants. Osteoporos Int 2003; 14 Suppl 3: S13-18.
  4. Genant HK, Cooper C, Poor G, Reid I, Ehrlich G, Kanis J, Nordin BC, Barrett-Connor E, Black D, Bonjour J-P. Interim report and recommendations of the World Health Organization task-force for osteoporosis. Osteoporosis International 1999; 10: 259-264.
  5. White SC, Pharoah MJ, Baghdady M, Wenzel A, Perschbacher S, Lee L, Jadu F, Ruprecht A, Lam EWN, Carter LC, Benson BW, Murdoch-Kinch CA. partIII interpretation In: Proceedings of the ORAL RADIOLOGY PRINCIPLES AND INTERPRETATION. elsvier mosby, 2014: 271-629.
  6. Bilezikian JP, Khan AA, Potts Jr JT, Hyperthyroidism TIWotMoAP. Guidelines for the management of asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism: summary statement from the third international workshop. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2009; 94: 335-339.
  7. Silverberg SJ, Locker FG, Bilezikian JP. Vertebral osteopenia: a new indication for surgery in primary hyperparathyroidism. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 1996; 81: 4007-4012.
  8. Lerner UH. Bone remodeling in post-menopausal osteoporosis. Journal of Dental Research 2006; 85: 584-595.
  9. El-Desouki MI, Othman SM, Fouda MA. Bone mineral density and bone scintigraphy in adult Saudi female patients with osteomalacia. Saudi medical journal 2004; 25: 355-358.
  10. Turner RT, Riggs BL, Spelsberg TC. Skeletal effects of estrogen. Endocrine reviews 1994; 15: 275-300.
  11. Tuukkanen J, Koivukangas A, J?ms? T, Sundquist K, Mackay C, Marks S. Mineral density and bone strength are dissociated in long bones of rat osteopetrotic mutations. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 2000; 15: 1905-1911.
  12. Miller RG, Segal JB, Ashar BH, Leung S, Ahmed S, Siddique S, Rice T, Lanzkron S. High prevalence and correlates of low bone mineral density in young adults with sickle cell disease. American journal of hematology 2006; 81: 236-241.
  13. Brennan BM, Mughal Z, Roberts SA, Ward K, Shalet SM, Eden TO, Will AM, Stevens RF, Adams JE. Bone mineral density in childhood survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated without cranial irradiation. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2005; 90: 689-694.
  14. Blake GM, Fogelman I. An update on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Semin Nucl Med 2010; 40: 62-73.
  15. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology : principles and interpretation. Mosby St. Louis
  16. Bonnick SL. Bone Densitometry in Clinical Practice: Application and Interpretation.
  17. White SC. Cone-beam imaging in dentistry. Health Phys 2008; 95: 628-637.
  18. Razi T, Niknami M, Alavi Ghazani F. Relationship between Hounsfield Unit in CT Scan and Gray Scale in CBCT. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2014; 8: 107-110.
  19. Lindh C, Nilsson M, Klinge B, Petersson A. Quantitative computed tomography of trabecular bone in the mandible. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1996; 25: 146-150.
  20. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am 2008; 52: 707-730, v.
  21. Scarfe WC, Angelopoulos C. Maxillofacial Cone Beam Computed Tomography: Principles, Techniques and Clinical Applications. Springer
  22. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. Journal-Canadian Dental Association 2006; 72: 75.
  23. Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Kaser Y, Peltola J, Kortesniemi M. Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2009; 38: 367-378.
  24. Reeves TE, Mah P, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam CT: a clinical application. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 500-508.
  25. 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. Clinical oral implants research 2012; 23: 832-836.
  26. Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Standardized method to quantify the variation in voxel value distribution in patient-simulated CBCT data sets. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140283.
  27. Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Variation in voxel value distribution and effect of time between exposures in six CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43: 20130376.
  28. Pauwels R, Nackaerts O, Bellaiche N, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A, Bosmans H, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R, Horner K. Variability of dental cone beam CT grey values for density estimations. The British journal of radiology 2013; 86: 20120135-20120135.
  29. Kau C, Richmond S, Palomo J, Hans M. Current products and practice: three-dimensional cone beam computerized tomography in orthodontics. Journal of orthodontics 2005; 32: 282-293.
  30. Carrafiello G, Dizonno M, Colli V, Strocchi S, Taubert SP, Leonardi A, Giorgianni A, Barresi M, Macchi A, Bracchi E. Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. La radiologia medica 2010; 115: 600-611.
  31. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, Souza PC, Martens W, Shahbazian M, Alonso A, Lambrichts I. A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT) Part I. On subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75: 265-269.
  32. Suomalainen A. Cone beam computed tomography in oral radiology. Institute of Dentistry, University of Helsinki Helsinki, Finland, Oral Radiology, Helsinki Medical Imaging Center, Helsinki University Central Hospital Helsinki, Finland, 2010.
  33. Scarfe WC, Li Z, Aboelmaaty W, Scott S, Farman A. Maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: essence, elements and steps to interpretation. Australian dental journal 2012; 57: 46-60.
  34. Macleod I, Heath N. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dental practice. Dent Update 2008; 35: 590-592.
  35. O?Neil P. Cone Beam Computed Tomography for General Dentists. Dentistry 2012; 01.
  36. 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: 873-879.
  37. Katsumata A, Hirukawa A, Okumura S, Naitoh M, Fujishita M, Ariji E, Langlais RP. Relationship between density variability and imaging volume size in cone-beam computerized tomographic scanning of the maxillofacial region: an in vitro study. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology 2009; 107: 420-425.
  38. Katsumata A, Hirukawa A, Okumura S, Naitoh M, Fujishita M, Ariji E, Langlais RP. Effects of image artifacts on gray-value density in limited-volume cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology 2007; 104: 829-836.
  39. Atsumi M, Park SH, Wang HL. Methods used to assess implant stability: current status. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22: 743-754.
  40. Hatcher DC, Dial C, Mayorga C. Cone beam CT for pre-surgical assessment of implant sites. CDA 2003; 31: 825-834.
  41. Van der Weijden F, Dell'Acqua F, Slot DE. Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2009; 36: 1048-1058.
  42. Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Yang J. Diagnostic validity (or acuity) of 2D CCD versus 3D CBCT-images for assessing periodontal breakdown. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology 2007; 104: 395-401.
  43. Estrela C, Bueno MR, Leles CR, Azevedo B, Azevedo JR. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and panoramic and periapical radiography for detection of apical periodontitis. Journal of endodontics 2008; 34: 273-279.
  44. Zhi-gui M, Lin-feng F. The role of CBCT in evaluation of alveolar bone state during orthodontic-periodontal treatment. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology 2010; 19.
  45. Mah JK, Danforth RA, Bumann A, Hatcher D. Radiation absorbed in maxillofacial imaging with a new dental computed tomography device. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology 2003; 96: 508-513.
  46. Chindasombatjaroen J, Kakimoto N, Shimamoto H, Murakami S, Furukawa S. Correlation between pixel values in a cone-beam computed tomographic scanner and the computed tomographic values in a multidetector row computed tomographic scanner. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2011; 35: 662-665.
  47. Nishino K, Shimamoto H, Kakimoto N, Tsujimoto T, Chindasombatjaroen J, Murakami S, Furukawa S. Influence of an object's z-axis location and location on the axial plane on the voxel value representation and uniformity in cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2014; 118: 619-624.
  48. Hofmann E, Schmid M, Sedlmair M, Banckwitz R, Hirschfelder U, Lell M. Comparative study of image quality and radiation dose of cone beam and low-dose multislice computed tomography--an in-vitro investigation. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18: 301-311.
  49. (2018) pubmed. medline, vol 2018, p scintefic literature search engine
  50. (2018) wikipedia. vol 2018
  51. Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010; 39: 323-335.
  52. Hohlweg-Majert B, Pautke C, Deppe H, Metzger MC, Wagner K, Schulze D. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of bony structures based on DICOM dataset. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69: 2763-2770.
  53. Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Influence of cone beam CT scanning parameters on grey value measurements at an implant site. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 79884780.
  54. Oliveira ML, Tosoni GM, Lindsey DH, Mendoza K, Tetradis S, Mallya SM. Assessment of CT numbers in limited and medium field-of-view scans taken using Accuitomo 170 and Veraviewepocs 3De cone-beam computed tomography scanners. Imaging science in dentistry 2014; 44: 279-285.
  55. Eskandarloo A, Abdinian M, Salemi F, Hashemzadeh Z, Safaei M. Effect of object location on the density measurement in cone-beam computed tomography versus multislice computed tomography. Dental research journal 2012; 9: S81.
  56. Azeredo F, de Menezes LM, Enciso R, Weissheimer A, de Oliveira RB. Computed gray levels in multislice and cone-beam computed tomography. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2013; 144: 147-155.
  57. Molteni R. Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013; 116: 105-119.
  58. Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H, Panmekiate S. Reduction of scatter-induced image noise in cone beam computed tomography: effect of field of view size and position. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016; 121: 188-195.
  59. Rodrigues AF, da Silva Campos MJ, Chaoubah A, Fraga MR, Vitral RWF. Use of gray values in CBCT and MSCT images for determination of density: influence of variation of FOV size. Implant dentistry 2015; 24: 155-159.
  60. Dillenseger JP, Matern JF, Gros CI, Bornert F, Goetz C, Le Minor JM, Constantinesco A, Choquet P. MSCT versus CBCT: evaluation of high-resolution acquisition modes for dento-maxillary and skull-base imaging. Eur Radiol 2015; 25: 505-515.
  61. Lagrav?re M, Carey J, Ben-Zvi M, Packota G, Major P. Effect of object location on the density measurement and Hounsfield conversion in a NewTom 3G cone beam computed tomography unit. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2008; 37: 305-308.
  62. Bryant JA, Drage NA, Richmond S. Study of the scan uniformity from an i-CAT cone beam computed tomography dental imaging system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 365-374.
  63. Araki K, Okano T. The effect of surrounding conditions on pixel value of cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 862-865.
  64. Oliveira ML, Freitas DQ, Ambrosano GM, Haiter-Neto F. Influence of exposure factors on the variability of CBCT voxel values: a phantom study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43: 20140128.
  65. Chindasombatjaroen J, Kakimoto N, Murakami S, Maeda Y, Furukawa S. Quantitative analysis of metallic artifacts caused by dental metals: comparison of cone-beam and multi-detector row CT scanners. Oral Radiology 2011; 27: 114-120.
  66. 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: 1425-1429.
  67. 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. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2010; 21: 558-562.
  68. Yamashina A, Tanimoto K, Sutthiprapaporn P, Hayakawa Y. The reliability of computed tomography (CT) values and dimensional measurements of the oropharyngeal region using cone beam CT: comparison with multidetector CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 245-251.
  69. Nomura Y, Watanabe H, Shirotsu K, Honda E, Sumi Y, Kurabayshi T. Stability of voxel values from cone‐beam computed tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral content. Clinical oral implants research 2013; 24: 543-548.

[Kareem S. El-Tabarany, Mona m. Aboulfotouh and Mostafa s. Ashmawy. (2018); VALIDITY OF CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY VOXEL DENSITY VALUES: A REVIEW. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 6 (Sep). 103-121] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

Kareem samir El-Tabarany
department of oral and maxillofacial radiology

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/7650      
DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/7650

Download Full Paper

Download PDF No. of Downloads: 43 | No. of Views: 147