Impact of acquisition volume on cone beam computed tomography imaging of marginal bone: an ex vivo study

Authors

  • Maurice Ruetters Department of Conservative Dentistry, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9945-7286
  • Korallia Alexandrou Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Holger Gehrig Department of Conservative Dentistry, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Sinclair Awounvo Institute of Medical Biometry, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Ti-Sun Kim Department of Conservative Dentistry, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Anna Felten Department of Conservative Dentistry, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Christopher Lux Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Sinan Sen Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Kiel, Germany

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2340/aos.v83.40494

Keywords:

Cone beam computed tomography, low-dose cone beam computed tomography, computed radiography, periodontitis, periodontal bone defects

Abstract

Objective: The current study explores whether there is a clinically relevant distinction in the measurement of marginal bone loss when comparing high-dose (HD) versus low-dose (LD) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) protocols in small and large acquisition volumes. 

Material and Methods: CBCTs of four human cadaveric preparates were taken in HD and LD mode in two different fields of view 8 × 8 cm2 (LV) and 5 × 5 cm2 (SV). In total, 43 sites of 15 teeth were randomly chosen, and marginal bone loss was measured twice in all protocols at 43 sites of 15 teeth by one calibrated investigator. Bland-Altman plots and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were calculated to assess the extent of agreement of the measurements. Additionally, the rater scored the certainty in each of the measurements.

Results: For HD-CBCT CCC of measurements obtained using SV versus LV was 0.991. CCC of measurements obtained using SV versus LV of LD-CBCT was 0.963. Both CCC values indicated excellent agreement between the two volumes in both protocols. 

CCC also indicated high intramodality correlation between HD-CBCT and LD-CBCT independent of the acquisition volume (0.963 – 0.992). Bland-Altman plots also indicated no substantial differences. Results of certainty scoring showed significant differences (p = 0.004 (LV), p < 0.001(SV)) between the LD and HD-CBCT.

Conclusions: Accuracy of measurements of bone loss shows no clinical noticeable effects depending on the CBCT volume in this ex vivo study. There appears to be no relevant advantage of SV over LV, neither in HD-CBCT nor in LD-CBCT and additionally no relevant advantage of HD versus LD in visualizing marginal bone loss.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, et al. Effective dose of dental CBCT-a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(1):20140197. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140197 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140197

Yeung AWK, Jacobs R, Bornstein MM. Novel low-dose protocols using cone beam computed tomography in dental medicine: a review focusing on indications, limitations, and future possibilities. Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Jun;23(6):2573–2581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02907-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02907-y

Horsch L, Labis C, Trebing CT, et al. Predictability and image quality of low-dose cone-beam computed tomography in computer-guided implantology: an experimental study. J Dent. 2021 Sep;112:103744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103744 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103744

Ruetters M, Gehrig H, Kim TS, et al. Imaging furcation defects with low-dose cone beam computed tomography. Sci Rep. 2022 Apr 26;12(1):6824. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10781-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10781-0

Ruetters M, Gehrig H, Kronsteiner D, et al. Low-dose CBCT imaging of alveolar buccal bone adjacent to mandibular anterior teeth – a pilot study. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(5):4173–4182. PMCID: PMC9072474 PMID: 35103838 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04389-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04389-x

Schwindling FS, Hilgenfeld T, Weber D, et al. In vitro diagnostic accuracy of low-dose CBCT for evaluation of peri-implant bone lesions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Dec;30(12):1200–1208. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13533 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13533

Cederhag J, Iskanderani D, Alstergren P, et al. Visibility of anatomical landmarks in the region of the mandibular third molar, a comparison between a low-dose and default protocol of CBCT. Acta Odontol Scand. 2023 2023/08/18;81(6):449–455.

Ting S, Attaia D, Johnson KB, et al. Can modifying shielding, field of view, and exposure settings make the effective dose of a cone-beam computed tomography comparable to traditional radiographs used for orthodontic diagnosis? Angle Orthod. 2020 Sep 1;90(5):655–664. https://doi.org/10.2319/072819-496.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/072819-496.1

Kiljunen T, Kaasalainen T, Suomalainen A, et al. Dental cone beam CT: a review. Phys Med. 2015 2015/12/01/;31(8):844–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.09.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.09.004

Heinz-Theo Lübbers KD. Digitale volumentomographie. Vol. 1. Berlin HSBH, editor. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57405-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57405-8

Cortellini P, Bissada NF. Mucogingival conditions in the natural dentition: narrative review, case definitions, and diagnostic considerations. J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Jun;45 Suppl 20:S190–S198. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12948 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12948

Ruetters M, Gehrig H, Kronsteiner D, et al. Ex-vivo imaging of buccal and oral periodontal bone with low-dose CBCT in porcine jaws. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2022 Jan 1;51(1):20210233. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20210233 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20210233

Charuakkra A, Mahasantipiya P, Lehtinen A, et al. Comparison of subjective image analysis and effective dose between low-dose cone-beam computed tomography machines. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2023 Jan;52(2):20220176. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20220176 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20220176

Parker JM, Mol A, Rivera EM, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography uses in clinical endodontics: observer variability in detecting periapical lesions. J Endod. 2017 Feb;43(2):184–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.10.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.10.007

Brüllmann D, Schulze RKW. Spatial resolution in CBCT machines for dental/maxillofacial applications – what do we know today? Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(1):20140204. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140204 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140204

McGarry CK, Grattan LJ, Ivory AM, Leek F, Liney GP, Liu Y et al. Tissue mimicking materials for imaging and therapy phantoms: a review. Phys Med Biol. 2020 Dec 16;65(23). PMID: 32998112. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/abbd17 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/abbd17

Commission E, Energy D-Gf. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology – evidence-based guidelines. Publications Office; 2012.

Downloads

Published

2024-04-25

Issue

Vol. 83: (2024) Acta Odontologica Scandinavica

Section

Research article

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Maurice Ruetters, Korallia Alexandrou, Holger Gehrig, Sinclair Awounvo, Ti-Sun Kim, Anna Felten, Christopher Lux, Sinan Sen

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.