Assessment of Differences in the Dimensions of Mandible Condyle Models in Fan- versus Cone-Beam Computer Tomography Acquisition

Modern treatment in the field of head and neck surgery aims for the least invasive therapy and places great emphasis on restorative treatment, especially in the case of injury and deformation corrective surgery. More and more often, surgeons use CAD/CAM (Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing) tools in their daily practice in the form of models, templates, and computer simulations of planning. These tools are based on DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) files derived from computed tomography. They can be obtained from both fan-beam (FBCT) and cone-beam tomography (CBCT) acquisitions, which are subsequently segmented in order to transform them into a 1-bit 3D model, which is the basis for further CAD processes. Aim: Evaluation of differences in the dimensions of mandible condyle models in fan- versus cone-beam computer tomography for surgical treatment purposes. Methods: 499 healthy condyles were examined in CT-based 3D models of Caucasians aged 8-88 years old. Datasets were obtained from 66 CBCT and 184 FBCT axial image series (in each case, imaging both mandible condyles resulted in the acquisition of 132 condyles from CBCT and 368 condyles from FBCT) and were transformed into three-dimensional models by digital segmentation. Eleven different measurements were performed to obtain information whether there were any differences between FBCT and CBCT models of the same anatomical region. Results: 7 of 11 dimensions were significantly higher in FBCT versus lower in CBCT (p < 0.05).

Automated summary

Modern head and neck surgery focuses on minimally invasive therapy and emphasizes restorative treatment, with surgeons increasingly using CAD/CAM tools in their practice. A study comparing mandible condyle models from fan-beam and cone-beam computer tomography found significant differences in dimensions, with 7 out of 11 measurements showing higher values in fan-beam versus cone-beam CT scans.