Effect of voxel size on accuracy of cone beam computed tomography–aided assessment of periodontal furcation involvement

Kamburoğlu, Kıvanç; Ereş, Gülden; Akgün, Ceren; Yeta, Elif Naz; Gülen, Orhan; Karacaoĝlu, Fatma

doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2015.07.030

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, as regards image resolution,Menezes, Janson, da Silveira Massaro, Cambiaghi, and Garib (2016) found comparable accuracy in linear measurements of alveolar bone crest levels on dried human mandibles comparing to anatomic measurements for voxel dimensions of 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 mm. Similar results were obtained by de Rezende Barbosa, Wood, Pimenta, Maria de Almeida, and Tyndall (2016) in the calculation of jaw cleft volume and byMaret et al (2012) for tooth volumetric measurements (using micro-CBCT) using different FOVs and voxel sizes Kamburoğlu et al (2015). do not find any difference in detection and volume measurements of simulated buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant defects by reducing the FOV.Reduced voxel sizes are needed for detecting and measuring periodontal and peri-implant defects of much smaller dimensions than the post-extraction alveolar socket assessed in the present study(Pinheiro et al, 2015) Kolsuz, Bagis, Orhan, Avsever, and Demiralp (2015).…”

supporting

confidence: 86%

“…Kamburoğlu et al. () do not find any difference in detection and volume measurements of simulated buccal marginal alveolar peri‐implant defects by reducing the FOV.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Kolsuz, Bagis, Orhan, Avsever, and Demiralp () identified a voxel size of 0.15 mm as the cutoff point for overall detection of a periodontal bony defect, while Kamburoğlu et al. () identified a voxel size of 0.1 mm for furcation defects. Finally, Thönissen et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Three‐dimensional analysis of bone remodeling following ridge augmentation of compromised extraction sockets in periodontitis patients: A randomized controlled study

Aimetti

Manavella

Corano³

et al. 2017

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alveolar sockets with extensive buccal bone deficiencies undergo significant three-dimensional volumetric alterations following natural healing. The immediate application of a slow-resorbing xenograft with a covering collagen membrane seems to be effective in improving alveolar ridge shape and dimensions, thus potentially reducing the need for adjunctive regenerative procedures at the time of implant placement.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 86%

“…Kamburoğlu et al. () do not find any difference in detection and volume measurements of simulated buccal marginal alveolar peri‐implant defects by reducing the FOV.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three‐dimensional analysis of bone remodeling following ridge augmentation of compromised extraction sockets in periodontitis patients: A randomized controlled study

Aimetti

Manavella

Corano³

et al. 2017

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[18][19][20][21][22] Other studies, however, have not been able to identify any relevant influence of voxel size on image assessment. 23,24 We assume that the different voxel sizes or anatomic structures evaluated could account for these discrepant results, given that when voxel size is greater than the structure evaluated, voxel value would not represent the tissue or its limit, but instead would be an average of the values for the different neighboring tissues. 25 Voxel size affects image quality because it is one of the factors affecting spatial resolution and noise.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of acquisition parameters on the evaluation of mandibular third molars through cone beam computed tomography

Melo

Nadaes

Nejaim

et al. 2017

Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

FOV size and number of basis images did not influence the evaluation of mandibular third molars and their relationship to the mandibular canal in the CBCT unit used. Conversely, smaller voxel size affected the assessment of contact between the tooth and the mandibular canal. In units in which voxel size does not influence radiation dose, the most appropriate CBCT protocol is the one using a smaller voxel size and delivering the lowest radiation dose to the patient.

show abstract

“…9–12 Voxel sizes in CBCT imaging range from 0.076 mm to 0.4 mm, depending on the protocol being used. 9, 13 Although some authors have stated that high-resolution images (voxel size smaller than 0.2 mm) provide significantly more accurate diagnosis, 14–20 others did not find differences among voxel sizes ranging from 0.125 to 0.4 mm for most clinical purposes. 21–28 It has been shown that a 0.3 mm voxel size associates good diagnostic performance with lower X-ray exposure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cone beam computed tomography-based models versus multislice spiral computed tomography-based models for assessing condylar morphology

Gomes

Gomes²,

Gonçalves

et al. 2016

Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To quantitatively compare condylar morphology using CBCT and MSCT virtual 3D surface models. Study Design The sample consisted of secondary data analysis of CBCT and MSCT scans obtained for clinical purposes from 74 patients treated with condylar resection and prosthetic joint replacement. 3D surface models of 146 condyles were constructed from each scan modality. Across-subject models were approximated and voxel-based registration was performed between homologous CBCT and MSCT images, making it possible to create an average CBCT and MSCT-based condylar models. SPHARM-PDM provided matching points on each correspondent model. ShapeAnalysisMANCOVA assessed statistical significant differences between observers and imaging modalities. One-sample t-test evaluated the null hypothesis that the mean differences between each CBCT and MSCT-based model were not clinically significant (<0.5mm). Tests were conducted at a significance level of P<0.05. Results ShapeAnalysisMANCOVA showed no statistically significant difference between the average CBCT and MSCT-based models (P>0.68). During pairwise comparison, the mean difference observed was 0.406mm, SD 0.173. One sample t-test showed that mean differences between each paired CBCT and MSCT-based models were not clinically significant (P=0.411). Conclusion 3D surface models constructed from CBCT images are comparable to those derived from MSCT scans and may be considered reliable tools for assessing condylar morphology.

show abstract

Effect of voxel size on accuracy of cone beam computed tomography–aided assessment of periodontal furcation involvement

Cited by 16 publications

References 25 publications

Three‐dimensional analysis of bone remodeling following ridge augmentation of compromised extraction sockets in periodontitis patients: A randomized controlled study

Three‐dimensional analysis of bone remodeling following ridge augmentation of compromised extraction sockets in periodontitis patients: A randomized controlled study

Influence of acquisition parameters on the evaluation of mandibular third molars through cone beam computed tomography

Cone beam computed tomography-based models versus multislice spiral computed tomography-based models for assessing condylar morphology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About