Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(02): 381-385
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1736388
Original Article

Influence of Voxel Size on CBCT Images for Dental Implants Planning

Ricardo Kehrwald
1   Department of Dentistry, Area of Implantology, Ingá Center University Maringa, Parana, Brazil
,
Hebert Sampaio de Castro
1   Department of Dentistry, Area of Implantology, Ingá Center University Maringa, Parana, Brazil
,
Samira Salmeron
1   Department of Dentistry, Area of Implantology, Ingá Center University Maringa, Parana, Brazil
,
Ricardo Alves Matheus
2   Department of Oral Medicine, Division of Oral Radiology, State University of Londrina, Londrina, Parana, Brazil
,
Gustavo Machado Santaella
3   Department of Diagnosis and Oral Health, Division of Oral Radiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, United States
,
Polyane Mazucatto Queiroz
4   Department of Dentistry, Division Oral Radiology, Area of Oral Radiology, Ingá Center University Maringa, Parana, Brazil
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study was developed to evaluate the influence of voxel size on bone measurements for implant planning.

Materials and Methods The research was performed by using edentulous synthetic human mandibles with different levels of bone resorption. For each mandible, height and bone thickness were measured with a digital caliper. The PaX-i3d device was used to acquire the volumes of the five mandibles, with 50kVp, 4 mA, and a voxel size of 0.08 mm. After the acquisition, the images were reconstructed in the software CS three-dimensional Imaging, with four different sizes of voxels: 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 mm. All volumes were analyzed by a single evaluator who performed measurements to obtain bone height and thickness, using the reference points that were considered in obtaining the gold standard. The data were analyzed by ANOVA with a significance level of 5%.

Results There was no significant difference in the measurements obtained with different voxel sizes, both for bone height measurements and bone thickness. There was no statistically significant difference in measurements in thickness in comparison to the gold standard.

Conclusion When necessary, to measure height and bone thickness, it is possible to recommend voxel images of larger size (0.40 mm) without compromising the quality of the patient's clinical planning.

Keywords

cone beam computed tomography - dental implants - diagnosis - dimensional measurement accuracy - implant planning - jaw edentulous - mandible


Publication History

Article published online:
13 December 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Parks ET. Computed tomography applications for dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2000; 44 (02) 371-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ganz SD. Cone beam computed tomography-assisted treatment planning concepts. Dent Clin North Am 2011; 55 (03) 515-536 , viii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 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 Sci Dent 2016; 46 (02) 93-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Terra GTC, Oliveira JX, Domingos VBTC. et al. Computadorized tomography cone beam: assessing its precision in linear measures. J Biodent Biomat 2011; 2: 10-16
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72 (01) 75-80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Scarfe WC, Farman AG. The basics of maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography. Semin Orthod 2009; 15: 2-13
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Waltrick KB, Nunes de Abreu Junior MJ, Corrêa M, Zastrow MD, Dutra VD. Accuracy of linear measurements and visibility of the mandibular canal of cone-beam computed tomography images with different voxel sizes: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 2013; 84 (01) 68-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Carraro G, Santos FC. The importance of computed tomography for the evalution of edentulous areas in implant planning. J Oral Invest 2014; 3: 31-36
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Dong T, Xia L, Cai C, Yuan L, Ye N, Fang B. Accuracy of in vitro mandibular volumetric measurements from CBCT of different voxel sizes with different segmentation threshold settings. BMC Oral Health 2019; 19 (01) 206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Queiroz PM, Santaella GM, Capelozza ALA, Rosalen PL, Freitas DQ, Haiter-Neto F. Zoom reconstruction tool: evaluation of image quality and influence on the diagnosis of root fracture. J Endod 2018; 44 (04) 621-625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Brüllmann D, Schulze RK. Spatial resolution in CBCT machines for dental/maxillofacial applications-what do we know today?. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44 (01) 20140204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bragatto FP, Iwaki Filho L, Kasuya AVB. et al. Accuracy in the diagnosis of vertical root fractures, external root resorptions, and root perforations using cone-beam computed tomography with different voxel sizes of acquisition. J Conserv Dent 2016; 19 (06) 573-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wanderley VA, Neves FS, Nascimento MCC. et al. Detection of incomplete root fractures in endodontically treated teeth using different high-resolution cone-beam computed tomography imaging protocols. J Endod 2017; 43 (10) 1720-1724
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Yamamoto-Silva FP, de Oliveira Siqueira CF, Silva MAGS. et al. Influence of voxel size on cone-beam computed tomography-based detection of vertical root fractures in the presence of intracanal metallic posts. Imaging Sci Dent 2018; 48 (03) 177-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ye N, Jian F, Xue J. et al. Accuracy of in-vitro tooth volumetric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 142 (06) 879-887
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hassan B, Couto Souza P, Jacobs R, de Azambuja Berti S, van der Stelt P. Influence of scanning and reconstruction parameters on quality of three-dimensional surface models of the dental arches from cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig 2010; 14 (03) 303-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kobayashi-Velasco S, Salineiro FCS, Gialain IO, Cavalcanti MGP. Diagnosis of alveolar and root fractures in macerated canine maxillae: a comparison between two different CBCT protocols. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017; 46 (06) 20170037
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sönmez G, Koç C, Kamburoğlu K. Accuracy of linear and volumetric measurements of artificial ERR cavities by using CBCT images obtained at 4 different voxel sizes and measured by using 4 different software: an ex vivo research. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018; 47 (08) 20170325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Yilmaz F, Sonmez G, Kamburoglu K, Koc C, Ocak M, Celik HH. Accuracy of CBCT images in the volumetric assessment of residual root canal filling material: Effect of voxel size. Niger J Clin Pract 2019; 22 (08) 1091-1098
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Dong T, Yuan L, Liu L. et al. Detection of alveolar bone defects with three different voxel sizes of cone-beam computed tomography: an in vitro study. Sci Rep 2019; 9 (01) 8146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Costa ALF, Barbosa BV, Perez-Gomes JP, Calle AJ, Santamaria MP, Lopes SC. Influence of voxel size on the accuracy of linear measurements of the condyle in images of cone beam computed tomography: a pilot study. J Clin Exp Dent 2018; 10 (09) e876-e882
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fokas G, Vaughn VM, Scarfe WC, Bornstein MM. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29 (Suppl. 16) 393-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lagos de Melo LP, Oenning ACC, Nadaes MR. et al. Influence of acquisition parameters on the evaluation of mandibular third molars through cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017; 124 (02) 183-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Bechara B, McMahan CA, Moore WS, Noujeim M, Geha H, Teixeira FB. Contrast-to-noise ratio difference in small field of view cone beam computed tomography machines. J Oral Sci 2012; 54 (03) 227-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Molteni R. Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013; 116 (01) 105-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar