Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Assessment of Periodontal Ligament Space: in Vitro Study on Artificial Tooth Model

Overview

Journal Clin Oral Investig

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2008 Feb 6

PMID 18247066

Citations 15

Authors

Nurdan Ozmeric

Irina Kostioutchenko

Georg Hagler

Matthias Frentzen

Pia-Merete Jervoe-Storm

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The aim of this in vitro study was to compare cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to conventional radiography (RG) in the assessment of the periodontal ligament space. A phantom with a variable "artificial" periodontal ligament space (0, 100, 200, 300, and 400 microm) was used as a model. The examinations were performed simultaneously with RG and NewTom 9000 digital volume tomograph. Assorted after increasing widths, 15 RGs and 15 CBCT images were presented for judgment to 20 dentists (DD), 20 dental assistants, and 20 dental students. Several weeks later, the same images were randomly mixed and presented to the same 20 DD again. The trial shows that RG gaps wider than 200 microm could be correctly identified by all participants with an accuracy of nearly 100%. A significant difference was observed between the modalities (p<0.05 and p<0.001) where conventional RGs performed better than CBCT for assessment of periodontal ligament space. Interobserver variation in relation to each technique was evaluated and no significant difference was found (p>0.05). In subjective evaluations of image quality with CBCT, the results were basically inferior for images of artificial periodontal ligament space, regardless of the experience of the observers.

Citing Articles

The Cone Beam Computed Tomography Evaluation of Cortical Bone Plate after Piezocision-Assisted Orthodontic Upper Arch Expansion: A Case Series.

Pietruska M, Waszkiewicz E, Skurska A, Sajewicz E, Dolinska E, Pietruska M Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(22).

PMID: 34832368 PMC: 8623075. DOI: 10.3390/ma14226967.

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in periodontal diseases: a Systematic review based on the efficacy model.

Assiri H, Dawasaz A, Alahmari A, Asiri Z BMC Oral Health. 2020; 20(1):191.

PMID: 32641102 PMC: 7341656. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01106-6.

Comparison of conventional imaging techniques and CBCT for periodontal evaluation: A systematic review.

Choi I, Cortes A, Arita E, Georgetti M Imaging Sci Dent. 2018; 48(2):79-86.

PMID: 29963478 PMC: 6015929. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2018.48.2.79.

Optimizing the reconstruction filter in cone-beam CT to improve periodontal ligament space visualization: An in vitro study.

Houno Y, Hishikawa T, Gotoh K, Naitoh M, Mitani A, Noguchi T Imaging Sci Dent. 2017; 47(3):199-207.

PMID: 28989903 PMC: 5620465. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2017.47.3.199.

Precision of cone beam CT to assess periodontal bone defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Haas L, Zimmermann G, De Luca Canto G, Flores-Mir C, Correa M Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017; 47(2):20170084.

PMID: 28869397 PMC: 5965906. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20170084.

References

Mah J, Danforth R, Bumann A, Hatcher D . Radiation absorbed in maxillofacial imaging with a new dental computed tomography device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003; 96(4):508-13. DOI: 10.1016/s1079-2104(03)00350-0. View

Naito T, Hosokawa R, Yokota M . Three-dimensional alveolar bone morphology analysis using computed tomography. J Periodontol. 1998; 69(5):584-9. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1998.69.5.584. View

Misch K, Yi E, Sarment D . Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for periodontal defect measurements. J Periodontol. 2006; 77(7):1261-6. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2006.050367. View

Gonzales T, Coleman G . Periodontal manifestations of collagen vascular disorders. Periodontol 2000. 1999; 21:94-105. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.1999.tb00170.x. View

Guerrero M, Jacobs R, Loubele M, Schutyser F, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D . State-of-the-art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Investig. 2006; 10(1):1-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-005-0031-2. View

Akesson L, Hakansson J, Rohlin M, Zoger B . An evaluation of image quality for the assessment of the marginal bone level in panoramic radiography. A comparison of radiographs from different dental clinics. Swed Dent J. 1993; 17(1-2):9-21. View

Tammisalo T, Luostarinen T, Vahatalo K, Neva M . Detailed tomography of periapical and periodontal lesions. Diagnostic accuracy compared with periapical radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1996; 25(2):89-96. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.25.2.9446979. View

Costa F, Cota L, Costa J, Pordeus I . Periodontal disease progression among young subjects with no preventive dental care: a 52-month follow-up study. J Periodontol. 2007; 78(2):198-203. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2007.060150. View

Pawelzik J, Cohnen M, Willers R, Becker J . A comparison of conventional panoramic radiographs with volumetric computed tomography images in the preoperative assessment of impacted mandibular third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002; 60(9):979-84. DOI: 10.1053/joms.2002.34399. View

10.

Lofthag-Hansen S, Huumonen S, Grondahl K, Grondahl H . Limited cone-beam CT and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of periapical pathology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006; 103(1):114-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.01.001. View

11.

Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Araki M, Iwai K, Sawada K, Akiyama Y . Comparison of image performance between cone-beam computed tomography for dental use and four-row multidetector helical CT. J Oral Sci. 2006; 48(1):27-34. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.48.27. View

12.

Hirschmann P . Radiographic interpretation of chronic periodontitis. Int Dent J. 1987; 37(1):3-9. View

13.

Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Yang J . Diagnostic validity (or acuity) of 2D CCD versus 3D CBCT-images for assessing periodontal breakdown. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 104(3):395-401. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.03.012. View

14.

Stavropoulos A, Wenzel A . Accuracy of cone beam dental CT, intraoral digital and conventional film radiography for the detection of periapical lesions. An ex vivo study in pig jaws. Clin Oral Investig. 2006; 11(1):101-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-006-0078-8. View

15.

Marmulla R, Wortche R, Muhling J, Hassfeld S . Geometric accuracy of the NewTom 9000 Cone Beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005; 34(1):28-31. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/31342245. View

16.

Loubele M, Maes F, Schutyser F, Marchal G, Jacobs R, Suetens P . Assessment of bone segmentation quality of cone-beam CT versus multislice spiral CT: a pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006; 102(2):225-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.10.039. View

17.

Rushton V, Horner K, Worthington H . Factors influencing the selection of panoramic radiography in general dental practice. J Dent. 1999; 27(8):565-71. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(99)00031-7. View

18.

Ziegler C, Woertche R, Brief J, Hassfeld S . Clinical indications for digital volume tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002; 31(2):126-30. DOI: 10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600680. View

19.

Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Martini P, Andreis I . A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 1998; 8(9):1558-64. DOI: 10.1007/s003300050586. View

20.

Ludlow J, Davies-Ludlow L, Brooks S . Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003; 32(4):229-34. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/26310390. View