Jundishapur Scientific Medical Journal

Jundishapur Scientific Medical Journal

Influence of Fields of View and Resolution on Accuracy of Linear Measurements in Cone Beam Computed Tomography Imaging

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Mahshid Razavi 1
Mohammad Amin Kavousi 2
Borna Bagherfar 3
Nila Bagheri 2
1 . Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
3 Doctor of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
10.32592/JSMJ.23.3.200
Abstract
Background and Objectives Given the substantial increase in dental implant procedures, the significance of precise linear measurements and the factors influencing them has been underscored by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of field of view (FOV) on the accuracy of linear measurements.
Subjects and Methods The study was performed on 6 human mandibles. FOVs used included: Small FOV 80 × 80 mm / Large FOV: 120 × 80 mm, each with two different resolutions. Digital caliper measurements were considered as the gold standard. Measurements were reviewed by two observers using NNT Viewer software.
Results The buccolingual dimension measured using a digital caliper, serving as the gold standard, averaged 7.02 ± 1.84 mm. CBCT measurements of the same dimension yielded mean values of 7.02 ± 1.87 mm for 80x80 FOV with high resolution, 6.97 ± 1.67 mm for 80x80 FOV with normal resolution, 6.87 ± 1.63 mm for 120x80 FOV with high resolution, and 6.93 ± 1.64 mm for 120x80 FOV with normal resolution (p = 1.000). The vertical dimension measured using a digital caliper, serving as the gold standard, averaged 18.08 ± 3.62 mm. CBCT measurements of the same dimension yielded mean values of 18.02 ± 3.65 mm for 80x80 FOV with high resolution, 18.10 ± 3.67 mm for 80x80 FOV with normal resolution, 18.09 ± 3.65 mm for 120x80 FOV with high resolution, and 18.09 ± 3.65 mm for 120x80 FOV with normal resolution (p = 1.000).
Conclusion Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in measurement accuracy between FOVs with varying resolutions.
Keywords
FOV
Spatial resolution
CBCT
Subjects

  •  

    • Gupta S, Patil N, Solanki J, Singh R, Laller S. Oral implant imaging: a review. The Malaysian journal of medical sciences: MJMS. 2015 May;22(3):7. [PMID]
    • Chuenchompoonut V, Ida M, Honda E, Kurabayashi T, Sasaki T. Accuracy of panoramic radiography in assessing the dimensions of radiolucent jaw lesions with distinct or indistinct borders. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2003 Mar 1;32(2):80-6. [1259/dmfr/29360754] [PMID]
    • Nagarajan A, Perumalsamy R, Thyagarajan R, Namasivayam A. Diagnostic imaging for dental implant therapy. Journal of clinical imaging science. 2014;4(Suppl 2). [4103/2156-7514.
      143440      ] [PMID]
    • Van Der Zel JM. Implant planning and placement using optical scanning and cone beam CT technology. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2008 Aug;17(6):476-81. [1111/j.1532-849X.
      2008.00322.x      ] [PMID]
    • Rubin RM. Making sense of cephalometrics. The Angle Orthodontist. 1997 Apr 1;67(2):83-5. [1043/0003-3219
      (1997)067<0083:MSOC>2.3.CO;2      ] [PMID]
    • Periago DR, Scarfe WC, Moshiri M, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. The Angle Orthodontist. 2008 May 1;78(3):387-95. [2319/122106-52.1] [PMID]
    • Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work?. Dental Clinics of North America. 2008 Oct 1;52(4):707-30. [1016/j.cden.2008.05.005] [PMID]
    • 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. Clinical oral investigations. 2007 Mar;11:101-6. [1007/s00
      784-006-0078-8      ] [PMID]
    • Alqerban A, Jacobs R, Souza PC, Willems G. In-vitro comparison of 2 cone-beam computed tomography systems and panoramic imaging for detecting simulated canine impaction-induced external root resorption in maxillary lateral incisors. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2009 Dec 1;136(6):764-e1. [1016/j.ajodo.
      2009.03.036      ] [PMID]
    • Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dento-maxillofacial radiology. 2006 Jul 1;35(4):219-26. [1259/
      dmfr/14340323      ] [PMID]
    • Elshenawy H, Aly W, Salah N, Nasry S, Anter E, Ekram K. Influence of Small, Midi, Medium and large fields of view on accuracy of linear measurements in CBCT imaging: diagnostic accuracy study. Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences. 2019 Mar 3;7(6):1037. [3889/oamjms.2019.232] [PMID]
    • Ganguly R, Ramesh A, Pagni S. The accuracy of linear measurements of maxillary and mandibular edentulous sites in cone-beam computed tomography images with different fields of view and voxel sizes under simulated clinical conditions. Imaging science in dentistry. 2016 Jun 1;46(2):93-101. [
      5624/isd.2016.46.2.93      ] [PMID]
    • Anter E, Zayet MK, El-Dessouky SH. Accuracy and precision of cone beam computed tomography in periodontal defects measurement (systematic review). Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology. 2016 May 1;20(3):235-43. [4103/0972-124X.176389] [PMID]
    • Hamilton A, Singh A, Friedland B, Jamjoom FZ, Griseto N, Gallucci GO. The impact of cone beam computer tomography field of view on the precision of digital intra‐oral scan registration for static computer‐assisted implant surgery: A CBCT analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2022 Dec;33
      (12):1273-81. [1111/clr.14009] [PMID]
    • Tarazona-Álvarez P, Romero-Millán J, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Fuster-Torres MÁ, Tarazona B, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Comparative study of mandibular linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography and digital calipers. Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry. 2014 Jul;6(3):e271. [4317/jced.51426] [PMID]
    • Ilo AM, Ekholm M, Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E, Waltimo-Sirén J. Minimum size and positioning of imaging field for CBCT-scans of impacted lower third molars: a retrospective study. BMC Oral Health. 2021 Dec;21:1-0. [1186/s12903-021-02029-6] [PMID]
    • Youssef WM, El-Din AM. Influence of Two Software Programs on The Accuracy of Linear Measurements of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. In Vitro Study.
    • Van Leeuwen BJ, Dijkstra PU, Dieters JA, Verbeek HP, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Ren Y. Effect of voxel size in cone-beam computed tomography on surface area measurements of dehiscences and fenestrations in the lower anterior buccal region. Clinical oral investigations. 2022 Sep;26(9):5663-72. [1007/s00784-022-04521-x] [PMID]
Jundishapur Scientific Medical Journal
Volume 23, Issue 3 - Serial Number 150
July and August 2024
Pages 200-210

  • Receive Date 14 January 2024
  • Revise Date 22 April 2024
  • Accept Date 08 May 2024