Effect of Exposure Parameters and Voxel Size on Bone Structure Analysis in CBCT

Overview

Journal Dentomaxillofac Radiol

Publisher Oxford University Press

Date 2015 Jun 10

PMID 26054572

Citations 30

Authors

R Pauwels

T Faruangsaeng

T Charoenkarn

N Ngonphloy

S Panmekiate

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effect of exposure parameters and voxel size on bone structure analysis in dental CBCT.

Methods: 20 cylindrical bone samples underwent CBCT scanning (3D Accuitomo 170; J. Morita, Kyoto, Japan) using three combinations of tube voltage (kV) and tube current-exposure time product (mAs), corresponding with a CT dose index of 3.4 mGy: 90 kV and 62 mAs, 73 kV and 108.5 mAs, and 64 kV and 155 mAs. Images were reconstructed with a voxel size of 0.080 mm. In addition, the 90 kV scan was reconstructed at voxel sizes of 0.125, 0.160, 0.200, 0.250 and 0.300 mm. The following parameters were measured: bone surface (BS) and bone volume (BV) per total volume (TV), fractal dimension, connectivity density, anisotropy, trabecular thickness (Tb. Th.) and trabecular spacing (Tb. Sp.), structure model index (SMI), plateness, branches, junctions, branch length and triple points.

Results: For most parameters, there was no significant effect of the kV value. For BV/TV, "90 kV" differed significantly from the other kV settings; for SMI, "64 vs 73 kV" was significant. For BS/TV, fractal dimension, connectivity density, branches, junctions and triple points values incrementally decreased at larger voxel sizes, whereas an increase was seen for Tb. Th., Tb. Sp., SMI and branch length. For anisotropy and plateness, no (or little) effect of voxel size was seen; for BV/TV, the effect was inconsistent.

Conclusions: Most bone structure parameters are not affected by the kV if the radiation dose is constant. Parameters dealing with the trabecular structure are heavily affected by the voxel size.

Citing Articles

How does the direction of region of interest selection affect the fractal dimension?.

Pekince A, Azlag Pekince K, Yasa Y Oral Radiol. 2024; 41(2):180-189.

PMID: 39543002 DOI: 10.1007/s11282-024-00786-y.

The relationship between radiomorphometric indices and fractal dimension analysis: a cone-beam computed tomography study.

Nursari E, Kiswanjaya B, Wijanarko A, Priaminiarti M, Bachtiar-Iskandar H, Yoshihara A Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):23440.

PMID: 39379515 PMC: 11461630. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-74485-3.

Efficacy of the CALM Algorithm in Reducing Motion-Induced Artifacts in CBCT Imaging: A Fractal Dimension Analysis of Trabecular Bone.

Khubrani Y, Geha H, Katkar R, Maghsoodi-Zahedi T, Moore W, Abdelkarim A Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(8).

PMID: 39195106 PMC: 11352799. DOI: 10.3390/dj12080262.

Assessment of cone-beam CT technical image quality indicators and radiation dose for optimal STL model used in visual surgical planning.

Koivisto J, Wolff J, Pauwels R, Kaasalainen T, Suomalainen A, Stoor P Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2024; 53(6):423-433.

PMID: 38913866 PMC: 11358642. DOI: 10.1093/dmfr/twae026.

Comparison of quantitative radiomorphometric predictors of healthy and MRONJ-affected bone using panoramic radiography and cone-beam CT.

Aslan E, Onem E, Mert A, Baksi B Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2024; 53(6):407-416.

PMID: 38810135 PMC: 11358619. DOI: 10.1093/dmfr/twae024.

References

Gonzalez-Martin O, Lee E, Veltri M . CBCT fractal dimension changes at the apex of immediate implants placed using undersized drilling. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 23(8):954-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02246.x. View

Scarfe W, Farman A, Sukovic P . Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006; 72(1):75-80. View

Wirth A, Goldhahn J, Flaig C, Arbenz P, Muller R, van Lenthe G . Implant stability is affected by local bone microstructural quality. Bone. 2011; 49(3):473-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2011.05.001. View

Hsu J, Wang S, Huang H, Chen Y, Wu J, Tsai M . The assessment of trabecular bone parameters and cortical bone strength: a comparison of micro-CT and dental cone-beam CT. J Biomech. 2013; 46(15):2611-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.08.004. View

Ibrahim N, Parsa A, Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Aartman I, Nambiar P . Influence of object location in different FOVs on trabecular bone microstructure measurements of human mandible: a cone beam CT study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013; 43(2):20130329. PMC: 4064619. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20130329. View

Pauwels R, Araki K, Siewerdsen J, Thongvigitmanee S . Technical aspects of dental CBCT: state of the art. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 44(1):20140224. PMC: 4277439. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140224. View

Molteni R . Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013; 116(1):105-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2013.04.013. View

Pauwels R, Nackaerts O, Bellaiche N, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A . Variability of dental cone beam CT grey values for density estimations. Br J Radiol. 2012; 86(1021):20120135. PMC: 4651064. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20120135. View

Muller R, Van Campenhout H, Van Damme B, Van der Perre G, Dequeker J, Hildebrand T . Morphometric analysis of human bone biopsies: a quantitative structural comparison of histological sections and micro-computed tomography. Bone. 1998; 23(1):59-66. DOI: 10.1016/s8756-3282(98)00068-4. View

10.

Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer S, Mupparapu M . CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable?. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 44(1):20140238. PMC: 4277442. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140238. View

11.

Huang Y, Van Dessel J, Liang X, Depypere M, Zhong W, Ma G . Effects of immediate and delayed loading on peri-implant trabecular structures: a cone beam CT evaluation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013; 16(6):873-83. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12063. View

12.

Panmekiate S, Ngonphloy N, Charoenkarn T, Faruangsaeng T, Pauwels R . Comparison of mandibular bone microarchitecture between micro-CT and CBCT images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 44(5):20140322. PMC: 4628495. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140322. View

13.

Fazzalari N, Parkinson I . Fractal dimension and architecture of trabecular bone. J Pathol. 1996; 178(1):100-5. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199601)178:1<100::AID-PATH429>3.0.CO;2-K. View

14.

Hildebrand T, Ruegsegger P . Quantification of Bone Microarchitecture with the Structure Model Index. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 1997; 1(1):15-23. DOI: 10.1080/01495739708936692. View

15.

Arganda-Carreras I, Fernandez-Gonzalez R, Munoz-Barrutia A, Ortiz-de-Solorzano C . 3D reconstruction of histological sections: Application to mammary gland tissue. Microsc Res Tech. 2010; 73(11):1019-29. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.20829. View

16.

Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A, Bosmans H . Comparison of spatial and contrast resolution for cone-beam computed tomography scanners. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012; 114(1):127-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.01.020. View

17.

Pauwels R, Silkosessak O, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H, Panmekiate S . A pragmatic approach to determine the optimal kVp in cone beam CT: balancing contrast-to-noise ratio and radiation dose. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 43(5):20140059. PMC: 4082271. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140059. View

18.

Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D . Bone quality evaluation at dental implant site using multislice CT, micro-CT, and cone beam CT. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 26(1):e1-7. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12315. View

19.

Gonzalez-Garcia R, Monje F . Is micro-computed tomography reliable to determine the microstructure of the maxillary alveolar bone?. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 24(7):730-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02478.x. View

20.

Ibrahim N, Parsa A, Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Aartman I, Wismeijer D . Accuracy of trabecular bone microstructural measurement at planned dental implant sites using cone-beam CT datasets. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 25(8):941-5. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12163. View