Comparison of two cone beam computed tomography multiplanar reconstruction orientation protocols

Abstract

Objective: The utilization of cone beam computed tomographic imaging for oral implants has increased enormously for precise determination of anatomic dimensions. However, the impact of reorientation of data that influences the constructed panoramic view and thus the measurements on generated cross sectional views has not been explored. This study is undertaken to explore if differences exist in the implant height and width measurement when the whole data is reoriented from the standard manufacturer's setting to an aligned protocol (perpendicular to the implant (XYZ) settings). Material and Methods:Two different orientation protocols were set up, standard and aligned or perpendicular setting (XYZ), and implant height and width measurements derived from these were compared to the original known measurements. Results:The range of differences between actual dimensions and measurements obtained using each orientation method using McNemar's Change test in the four accuracy categories (exact, +0.20, +0.25, and +0.50) showed the aligned orientation produced larger proportion of width measurements between +0.25 and +0.50 compared to standard for width measures; however, these differences were not statistically significant. Implant length measurements varied widely and this variability was irrespective of orientation method. Conclusions:The aligned/perpendicular (XYZ) protocol produces implant width measurements more accurate than length when compared to the standard protocol.

Evaluation of the diagnostic yield of dental radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the identification of anatomic landmarks in small to medium-sized brachycephalic dogs

“…The margin of error for use of this technique on CBCT images has been determined to be submillimeter values. 22 Cone-beam CT is commonly used for endodontic and orthodontic applications as well as implant planning for human dentistry and maxillofacial surgery. In fact, CBCT is already so well established that the latest CBCT-related studies no longer attempt to prove its superiority to conventional radiography, but instead use CBCT-derived images as the criterionreferenced standard for the localization and description of anatomic landmarks or for postoperative quality assessment of endodontic procedures.…”

The Diagnostic Yield of Dental Radiography and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for the Identification of Dentoalveolar Lesions in Cats

“…Whenever conventional radiography cannot supply satisfactory diagnostic information for human dentistry, especially for complex cases (i.e., evaluation and treatment of cleft palate, unerupted teeth, or orthognathic surgery), CBCT is regarded as the method of choice (16–18). The use of specialized imaging software designed for processing CBCT images can provide precise sagittal, dorsal, and transverse slices as well as serial transplanar reformation (cross-sections) of each individual tooth, curved planar reformation (simulated distortion-free panoramic images), and indirect volume rendering in tooth and bone modes (19, 20).…”

Diagnostic Yield of Dental Radiography and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for the Identification of Anatomic Structures in Cats

“…Additionally, the concept of generalizability, which describes the extent to which research findings can be applied to settings other than that in which they were originally tested, must be taken into consideration regarding future directions in this line of research. Importantly, recognition that there are differences in diagnostic yield between image viewing methods for a single imaging modality such as CBCT emphasizes the importance of developing standardized orientation and viewing protocols (21–23). Also, the training and use of multiple evaluators could lead to more accurate results (23–25).…”

“…Importantly, recognition that there are differences in diagnostic yield between image viewing methods for a single imaging modality such as CBCT emphasizes the importance of developing standardized orientation and viewing protocols (21–23). Also, the training and use of multiple evaluators could lead to more accurate results (23–25). Multiple evaluators would have allowed for inter-observer variability to be determined, reduced the possibility of interpretation bias, and strengthened the study overall.…”