Effect of Voxel Size and Object Location in the Field of View on Detection of Bone Defects in Cone Beam Computed Tomography
Objectives: This study aimed to assess the effect of voxel size and object location in the field of view (FOV) on diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for detection of simulated bone defects.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, bone defects were drilled in four sections of a dry human mandible. Bone blocks were fixed on a platform parallel to the horizontal plane and CBCT images were acquired using 0.2mm and 0.3mm resolutions and five locations of FOV (anterior, posterior, left, right and center). Three reviewers viewed the images twice and the presence or absence of simulated bone defects was determined in positive and negative cases.
Results: Sensitivity in different locations of FOV ranged between 0.25-1.0 and 0.75-1.0 in low and high resolutions, respectively. These values were 0.625-1.0 and 0.69-1.0, respectively for specificity. Intra-observer agreements were in the range of 0.84-1.0 and 0.75-1.0 and inter-observer agreements were in the range of 0.3-0.61 and 0.46-0.69 in high and low resolutions, respectively. The highest sensitivity was seen at the center of the FOV and with an increase in resolution from 0.3mm to 0.2mm, the sensitivity increased specially in the posterior region of the FOV while image resolutions and FOV locations did not affect specificity.
Conclusions: The highest sensitivity values were obtained at the center of the FOV and lowest values were seen in images acquired in the posterior region in low resolution. Diagnostic accuracy improved with increased resolution.
- Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of conebeam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006 Feb;72(1):75-80.
- Swennen GR, Schutyser FA, Hausamen JE, editors. Three-dimensional cephalometry: a color atlas and manual. Heidelberg, Springer Science & Business Media, 2005:97-100.
- Damstra J, Fourie Z, Slater JJ, Ren Y. Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomography-derived surface models of different voxel sizes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010 Jan;137(1):16-e1.
- Ibrahim N, Parsa A, Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Aartman IHA, Nambiar P. Influence of object location in different FOVs on trabecular bone micro-structure measurements of human mandible: a cone beam CT study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014 Jan;43(2):20130329.
- White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 7th Ed. Amsterdam, Elsevier Health Sciences, 2014:185-97.
- 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 Oct;37(7):365-74.
- Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R. Analysis of intensity variability in multi-slice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Aug;22(8):873-9.
- Nithiananthan S, Schafer S, Uneri A, Mirota DJ, Stayman JW, Zbijewski W, et al. Demons deformable registration of CT and cone-beam CT using aniterative intensity matching approach. Med Phys 2011 Apr;38(4):1785-98.
- Tsutsumi K, Chikui T, Okamura K, Yoshiura K. Accuracy of linear measurement and the measurement limits of thin objects with cone beam computed tomography: effects of measurement directions and of phantom locations in the fields of view. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Jan-Feb;26(1):91-100.
- Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Impact of voxel size variation on CBCT-based diagnostic outcome in dentistry: a systematic review. J Digit Imaging. 2013 Aug;26(4):813-20.
- Tjong W, Kazakia GJ, Burghardt AJ, Majumdar S. The effect of voxel size on high-resolution peripheral computed tomography measurements of trabecular and cortical bone microstructure. Med Phys 2012 Apr;39(4):1893-903.
- Hassan B, Couto Souza P, Jacobs R, de Azambuja Berti S, van der Stelt P. Influence of scanning and reconstruction parameters on quality of three-dimensional surface models of the dental arches from cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Invest 2010 Jun;14(3):303-10.
- Bechara B, McMahan CA, Moore WS, Noujeim M, Geha H, Teixeira FB. Contrast-to-noise ratio difference in small field of view cone beam computed tomography machines. J Oral Sci. 2012 Sep;54(3):227-32.
- Vandenberghe B, Luchsinger S, Hostens J, Dhoore E, Jacobs R, SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. The influence of exposure parameters on jawbone model accuracy using cone beam CT and multislice CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012 Sep;41(6):466-74.
- Librizzi ZT, Tadinada AS, Valiyaparambil JV, Lurie AG, Mallyad SM. Cone-beam computed tomography to detect erosions of the temporo-mandibular joint: Effect of field of view and voxel size on diagnostic efficacy and effective dose. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011 Jul;140(1):e25-30.
- Hatcher DC. Operational principles for cone-beam computed tomography. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010 Oct;141 Suppl 3:3S-6S.
- Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am. 2008 Oct;52(4):707-30.
- Farman AG. Field of view. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009 Oct;108(4):477-8.
- Endo M, Tsunoo T, Nakamori N, Yoshida T. Effect of scattered radiation on image noise in cone beam CT. Med Phys. 2001 Apr;28(4):469-74.
- Siltanen S, Kolehmainen V, Jarvenpaa S, Kaipio JP, Koistinen P, Lassas M, et al. Statistical inversion for medical x-ray tomography with few radiographs: 1. General theory. Phys Med Biol. 2003 May 21;48(10):1437-63.
- Katsevich AI. Local tomography for the limited-angle problem. J Math Anal Appl 1997 Sep;213(1):160-82.
- Kwong JC, Palomo M, Landers MA, Figueroa A, Hans MG. Image quality produced by different cone-beam computed tomography settings. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Feb;133(2):317-27.
- Salvado O, Hillenbrand CM, Wilson DL. Partial volume reduction by interpolation with reverse diffusion. Int J Biomed Imaging. 2006;2006:92092.
- Katsumata A, Hirukawa A, Okumura S, Naitoh M, Fujishita M, Ariji E, et al. Effects of image artifacts on gray-value density in limited-volume cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007 Dec;104(6):829-36.
- Costa FF, Gai BR, Umetsubo OS, Pinheiro LR, Tortamano IP, Cavalcanti MGP. Use of large-volume cone-beam computed tomography in identification and localization of horizontal root fracture in the presence and absence of intracanal metallic post. J Endod. 2012 Jun;38(6):856-9.
- Hassan B, Metska M, Ozok A, VanderStelt P, Wesselink P. Comparison of five cone beam computed tomography systems for the detection of vertical root fractures. J Endod. 2010 Jan;36(1):126-9.
- Kamburoglu K, Murat S, Kılıç C, Yuksel S, Avsever H, Farman A, et al. Accuracy of CBCT images in the assessment of buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant defects: effect of field of view. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014;43(4):20130332.
- Kamburoğlu K, Kolsuz E, Murat S, Eren H, Yüksel S, Paksoy CS. Assessment of buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant and periodontal defects using a cone beam CT system with and without the application of metal artefact reduction mode. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013 Aug;42(8):20130176.
- Hedesiu M, Baciut M, Baciut G, Nackaerts O, Jacobs R; SEDENTEXCT Consortium. Comparison of cone beam CT device and field of view for the detection of simulated periapical lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012 Oct;41(7):548-52.
- Patel S, Dawood A, Mannocci F, Wilson R, PittFord T. Detection of periapical bone defects in human jaws using cone beam computed tomography and intraoral radiography. Int Endod J. 2009 Jun;42(6):507-15.
- Patel A, Tee BC, Fields H, Jones E, Chaudhry J, Sun Z. Evaluation of cone-beam computed tomography in the diagnosis of simulated small osseous defects in the mandibular condyle. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Feb;145(2):143-56.
|Issue||Vol 13, No 4 (2016)|
|Bone and Bones Sensitivity and Specificity Cone-Beam Computed Tomography|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|