Comparison of an adaptive local thresholding method on CBCT and <i>µ</i>CT endodontic images

Michetti, Jérôme; Basarab, Adrian; Diemer, Frank; Kouamé, Denis

doi:10.1088/1361-6560/aa90ff

Cited by 27 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The volumes were then binarized to visualize only filling material remnants. The filling material was quantified in mm 3 after canal filling and the two stages of the secondary treatment procedure (Michetti et al 2017). The localization of the filling material remnants was determined for the coronal, middle and apical thirds.…”

Section: Micro-ct Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of two shaping systems and two sonic irrigation devices in removing root canal filling material from distal roots of mandibular molars assessed by micro CT

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To compare two preparation systems and two sonic irrigation devices during the removal of root filling material from oval distal canals of extracted mandibular molars. Methodology The distal canals in 40 extracted mandibular molars were shaped using the ProTaper Next system (Dentslpy Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), filled with Gutta Percha X2 (Dentsply Sirona), along with AH Plus sealer (Dentsply De Trey, Konstanz, Germany) and randomly divided into two groups (n = 20) according to volume of initial filling, preparation diameter and working length. One group was retreated using the Reciproc system (VDW, Munich, Germany), and the other using the 2Shape system (Micro‐Mega, Besançon, France). A micro‐CT scan was taken after the initial root filling and after retreatment to evaluate the volume of filling material remnants. The teeth were divided into four groups to test the supplementary effect of two sonic irrigation devices on removing filling material: Eddy (VDW) and MM1500 (Micro‐Mega). In the first and second groups, 2Shape was followed subsequently by MM1500 and Eddy; in the third and fourth groups, Reciproc was followed by MM1500 and Eddy. A third micro‐CT was taken to compare the remaining root filling material in all groups. Wilcoxon's signed rank tests, Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for statistical analysis. Results No significant difference was found for the volume of filling material removed between the Reciproc and 2Shape in the entire canal (P = 0.355). The volume dropped significantly from its initial value after removing the bulk of the root filling by 95.8% (from 4.71 to 0.22 mm3) with the 2Shape (P < 0.001) and by 94.0% (from 5.05 to 0.33 mm3) with the Reciproc (P < 0.001). Sonic activation significantly decreased the residual volume of filling material remnants by 3.21% (P = 0.013) in the first group, 1.38% (P = 0.012) in the second group, 1.83% (P = 0.008) in the third group and 1.83% (P = 0.012) in the fourth group. At the end, the percentage of residual material was not significantly different among the groups in the entire canal (P = 0.163). Conclusion In the distal oval canals of extracted mandibular molar teeth, there was no significant difference between the 2Shape and Reciproc systems in removing gutta‐percha/sealer. Sonic activation with MM1500 and Eddy significantly improved filling material removal.

show abstract

Section: Micro-ct Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of two shaping systems and two sonic irrigation devices in removing root canal filling material from distal roots of mandibular molars assessed by micro CT

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another study, using high spatial resolution cone beam tomography (76μm) showed very strong correlations between root canal areas obtained from selected slices in CBCT and histologic sections 23 or root canal volume obtained by micro-CT data 24 . In both cases, the automatic segmentation implemented resulted in CBCT data which was slightly smaller than the gold standard (underestimation), corroborating results of the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Root canal segmentation in cone-beam computed tomography

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare root canal volumes (RCVs) obtained by means of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) to those obtained by micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) after applying different segmentation algorithms. Methods: Eighteen extracted human teeth with sound root canals were individually scanned in CBCT and micro-CT using specific acquisition parameters. Two different images segmentation strategies were applied to both acquisition methods (a visual and an automatic threshold). From each segmented tooth, the root canal volume was obtained. A paired t-test was used to identify differences between mean values resulted from the experimental groups and the gold standard. In addition, Pearson correlation coefficients and the agreement among the experimental groups with the gold standard were also calculated. The significance level adopted was 5%. Results: No statistical differences between the segmentation methods (visual and automatic) were observed for micro-CT acquired images. However, significant differences for the two segmentation methods tested were seen when CBCT acquired images were compared with the micro-CT automatic segmentation methods used. In general, an overestimation of the values in the visual method were observed while an underestimation was observed with the automatic segmentation algorithm. Conclusion: Cone beam computed tomography images acquired with parameters used in the present study resulted in low agreement with root canal volumes obtained with a micro-CT tomography gold standard method of RCV calculation.

show abstract

“…The enhanced images were also compared as 3-D volumes. The canal root was segmented from the 3-D volume using a dedicated adaptive local thresholding described in [50]. For visually showing the segmentation results, the software MeVisLab [51] was used.…”

Section: Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The segmentation results were analyzed quantitatively as well. For each root, the canal area and the Feret's diameter were estimated for all the radicular axial reconstructions, as suggested in [50]. The Feret's diameter defines the longest distance between two parallel straight lines that are tangent to the shape.…”

Section: Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%