4.3 Article

Cone beam computed tomography 3D reconstruction of the mandibular condyle

Journal

ANGLE ORTHODONTIST
Volume 78, Issue 5, Pages 880-888

Publisher

E H ANGLE EDUCATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC
DOI: 10.2319/072007-339.1

Keywords

cone beam; TMJ

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine the ideal window level and width needed for cone beam computed three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the condyle. Materials and Methods: Linear dimensions were measured with a digital caliper to assess the anatomic truth for 50 dry human mandibular condyles. Condyles were scanned with the i-CAT cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D-models were reconstructed. Three linear three-dimensional measurements were made on each of the 50 condyles at 8 different Hounsfield unit (HU) windows. These measurements were compared with the anatomic truth. Volumetric measurements were also completed on all 50 condyles, at 23 different window levels, to define the volumetric distribution of bone mineral density (BMD) within the condyle. Results: Significant differences were found in two of the three linear measurement groups at and below the recommended viewing window for osseous structures. The most accurate measurements were made within the soft tissue range for HU window levels. Volumetric distribution measurements revealed that the condyles were mostly comprised of low-density bone, and that condyles exhibiting significant changes in linear measurements were shown to have higher percentages of low-density bone than those condyles with little change from the anatomic truth. Conclusions: CBCT assessment of the mandibular condyle, using the 3D reconstruction, is most accurate when accomplished at density levels below that recommended for osseous examination. However, utilizing lower window levels which extend into the soft tissue range, may compromise one's capacity to view the bony topography.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available