 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Sains Malaysiana 44(9)(2015): 1331–1337
Effect of
Different Angle Scanning on Density Estimation Based on Hounsfield Unit on CT and CBCT
(Kesan
Imbasan Sudut Berlainan ke atas Anggaran Kepadatan berdasarkan Unit Hounsfield
pada CT dan CBCT)
MAYA GENISA1*, ZAINUL AHMAD RAJION1, DASMAWATI MOHAMAD1, ABDULLAH POHCHI1, MOHD RAFIQ ABDUL KADIR2 & SOLEHUDDIN SHUIB3
1School
of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Health Campus, 16150 Kubang
Kerian, Kelantan Darul Naim, Malaysia
2Faculty
of Biomedical Engineering & Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
81310
Skudai, Johor Darul Takzim, Malaysia
3School
of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia
14300
Nibong Tebal, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
Received:
29 September 2013/Accepted: 25 May 2015
ABSTRACT
This study aim to evaluate the effect of different angle on bone
density estimation based on HU on CT and CBCT scanning. A phantom of jaw was scanned using CT and CBCT machine from different angle (0, 15 and 30 degrees). The data
were transformed into DICOM format and loaded into MIMICS software for density measurement. The density was measured at
9.55 mm from cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) on every different angle
scanning data. Then these data were grouped as Group A1, A2 and A3 for CBCT group (0, 15 and 30 degrees, respectively) and Group B1, B2 and
B3 for CT group (0, 15 and 30 degrees, respectively). The
differences between the groups and the references (0 degree scanning) are
measured statistically using SPSS software. In the CBCT data,
the density reading at 15 and 30 degrees are higher than 0 degree scanning
(mean difference = -155.63±62.61, p=0.03,
mean difference = -33.13±84.24, p=0.206 for 15 and 30 degrees scanning,
respectively). In the CT data, the density at 15 and 30 degrees scanning is
lower than at 0 degrees scanning (mean different: 84.49±46.76, p=0.09
and 15.09±23.61, p=0.532). The differences are not significant
statistically. Compared with CT, the effect of different
angle scanning on density estimation on CBCT is stronger. These results
showed that different angle scanning produce more error on density estimation
based on HU on CBCT compared with CT.
This study demonstrated that the uses of a CBCT and CT for density monitoring to evaluate bone density of jaws are
affected by angle scanning.
Keywords: Angle scanning; cemento-enamel junction; density;
Hounsfield unit
ABSTRAK
Matlamat kajian ini adalah untuk menilai kesan
sudut berbeza pada anggaran ketumpatan tulang berdasarkan HU pada
imbasan CT
dan CBCT. Model rahang telah diimbas
dengan menggunakan CT dan CBCT daripada
sudut berbeza (0, 15 dan 30 darjah). Data
diubah kepada format DICOM dan dimuatnaik ke dalam perisian MIMICS untuk
pengiraan ketumpatan. Ketumpatan diukur
pada 9.55 mm dari temuan simento-enamel (CEJ) di setiap sudut berbeza data
imbasan. Data ini kemudiannya dikumpulkan sebagai Kumpulan
A1, A2 dan A3 untuk kumpulan CBCT (masing-masing 0, 15 dan 30 darjah)
dan Kumpulan B1, B2 dan B3 bagi kumpulan CT (masing-masing
0, 15 dan 30 darjah). Perbezaan antara kumpulan
dan rujukan (0 darjah imbasan) diukur secara statistik menggunakan
perisian SPSS.
Dalam data CBCT, bacaan ketumpatan pada 15 dan 30 darjah adalah lebih
tinggi daripada 0 darjah imbasan (min beza = -155,63±62.61,
p=0.03, min beza = -133,13±84.24, p=0,206
pada 15 dan 30 darjah imbasan). Dalam data CT, ketumpatan pada 15
dan 30 darjah imbasan adalah lebih rendah daripada 0 darjah imbasan
(min beza: 84,49±46.76, p=0.09 dan 15.09±23.61,
p=0,532). Perbezaan ini tidak ketara
secara statistik. Berbanding dengan CT,
kesan imbasan sudut berbeza pada anggaran kepadatan CBCT adalah
lebih kuat. Keputusan ini menunjukkan bahawa imbasan sudut
berbeza menghasilkan lebih banyak ralat dalam anggaran kepadatan
berdasarkan HU
pada CBCT
berbanding CT. Kajian ini menunjukkan bahawa penggunaan
CBCT dan CT untuk memantau ketumpatan dalam
menilai ketumpatan tulang rahang dipengaruhi oleh imbasan sudut.
Kata kunci: Ketumpatan; sudut imbasan; temuan
simento-enamel; unit Hounsfield
REFERENCES
Alamri, H.M., Sadrameli, M., Alshalhoob, M.A., Sadrameli, M.
& Alshehri, M.A. 2012. Applications of CBCT in dental practice : A review of the literature applications in oral
and maxillofacial surgery. General Dentistry 60(5): 390-400.
Ali,
I. & Ahmad, S. 2009. Evaluation of the effects of sagging shifts on
isocenter accuracy and image quality of cone-beam CT from kV on-board imagers. Journal
of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 10(3): 180-194.
Benson,
B.W., Prihoda, T.J. & Glass, B.J. 1991. Variations in adult cortical bone
mass as measured by a panoramic mandibular index. Oral Surgery, Oral
Medication, Oral Pathology 71(3): 349-356.
Chan,
H., Misch, K. & Wang, H. 2010. Dental imaging in implant treatment planning. Implant Dentistry 19(4): 288-298.
Farré-pagès, N.M., Augé-castro, L., Alaejos-algarra, F.,
Mareque-bueno, J., Ferrés-Padró, E. & Hernández-Alfaro, F. 2011. Relation between bone density and primary implant stability. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal. 16(1):
62-67.
Ford, J.C., Zheng, D. & Williamson, J.F. 2011. Estimation of CT cone-beam geometry using a novel method insensitive to phantom
fabrication inaccuracy: Implications for isocenter localization accuracy. Medical
Physics 38(6): 2829-2840.
Gulsahi, A. 2009. Bone quality
assessment for dental implants. In Implant Dentistry - The Most Promising
Discipline of Dentistry, edited by Turkyilmaz, I. Croatia: European Union:
InTech.
Hsu, J.T., Chang, H.W., Huang, H.L., Yu, J.H., Li, Y.F.
& Tu, M.G. 2011. Bone density changes around teeth
during orthodontic treatment. Clinical Oral Investigations 15(4):
511-519.
Isoda, K., Ayukawa, Y., Tsukiyama, Y., Sogo, M., Matsushita,
Y. & Koyano, K. 2012. Relationship between the bone density
estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and the primary stability of dental
implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research 23(7): 832-836.
Kaya, S., Yavuz, I., Uysal, I. & Akkuş, Z. 2012. Measuring bone density in healing periapical lesions by using cone beam
computed tomography: A clinical investigation. Journal of Endodontics 38(1):
28-31.
Shapurian, T., Damoulis, P.D., Reiser, G.M., Griffin, T.J.
& Rand, W.M. 2006. Quantitative
evaluation of bone density using the Hounsfield index. The
International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 21(2): 290-297.
Schulze,
R., Heil, U., Groß, D., Bruellmann, D.D., Dranischnikow, E.,
Schwanecke, U. & Schoemer, E. 2011. Artefacts in CBCT: A review.
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 40(5): 265-273. Sun, Y., Hou, Y., Zhao, F. & Hu, J. 2006.
A calibration method for misaligned scanner geometry in cone-beam
computed tomography. NDT & E International 39(6):
499-513. Swennen, G.R.J. & Schutyser, F. 2006. Three-dimensional cephalometry: Spiral multi-slice vs cone-beam computed
tomography. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 130(3): 410-416.
Turkyilmaz,
I. & McGlumphy, E.A. 2008. Influence of bone density on implant
stability parameters and implant success: A retrospective clinical
study. BMC Oral Health 8: 32. Yunus, B. 2011. Assessment of the increased
calcification of the jaw bone with CT-Scan after
dental implant placement. Imaging Science in Dentistry 41(2): 59-62.
*Corresponding author; email: mgenisa@gmail.com
|
|||
|
