4.6 Article

A Comparative Study on the Voxel Values in Alveolar Bones Acquired by MDCT and Newly Developed Dental Dual-Energy CBCT

Journal

SENSORS
Volume 21, Issue 22, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s21227552

Keywords

dual-energy; cone beam; computed tomography; bone density

Funding

  1. Korea government Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy [10063356]
  2. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [10063356] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of newly developed dental DE-CBCT with MDCT in analyzing hard bone tissue voxel values, and found that the DE-CBCT showed a level of accuracy similar to that of MDCT.
The purpose of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of newly developed dental dual-energy (DE) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to compare both the voxel values in hard bone tissue of DE-CBCT and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) images, collected in a clinical trial conducted at Seoul National University Dental Hospital. A software implemented as a scripted module of a three-dimensional (3D) slicer was developed to register the volume data from the MDCT space to DE-CBCT, locate the same 3D regions of interest (ROIs) in each image space, and extract the statistics of the ROIs. The mean values were paired and used as representative values of the ROIs. A scatter plot with the line of equality and Bland-Altman (BA) plot of difference for a pair of measured means were used for statistical analysis. Of the ROI pairs, 96% were within & PLUSMN;15% from the identity line, and more than 95% of the measured ROI pairs were within the limits of agreement of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with the CI of the limits in BA plots. The newly developed dental DE-CBCT showed a level of voxel value accuracy similar to that of MDCT.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available