Volumetric analysis of the mandibular condyle using cone beam computed tomography

2012 ◽  
Vol 81 (8) ◽  
pp. 1812-1816 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehmet Bayram ◽  
Saadettin Kayipmaz ◽  
Ömer Said Sezgin ◽  
Murat Küçük
2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nafiseh Nikkerdar ◽  
Shahriar Shahab ◽  
Maryam Goodarzi ◽  
Amin Golshah ◽  
SanazSharifi Shooshtari

2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Max-Philipp Lentzen ◽  
Ali-Farid Safi ◽  
Maximilian Riekert ◽  
Veerle Visser-Vandewalle ◽  
Andrea Grandoch ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 78 (5) ◽  
pp. 880-888 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Schlueter ◽  
Ki Beom Kim ◽  
Donald Oliver ◽  
Gus Sortiropoulos

Abstract 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.


2010 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Liu ◽  
Raphael Olszewski ◽  
Emanuel Stefan Alexandroni ◽  
Reyes Enciso ◽  
Tianmin Xu ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective: To determine the accuracy of volumetric analysis of teeth in vivo using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: The physical volume (Vw) of 24 bicuspids extracted for orthodontic purposes (16 were imaged with the I-CAT and 8 with the CB MercuRay) were determined using the water displacement technique. Corresponding pretreatment CBCT image data were uploaded into Amira 4.0 for segmentation and radiographic volume (Va). All measurements were performed twice by two observers. The statistical difference between Vw and Va was assessed using a paired t-test. The intraobserver and interobserver reliability were determined by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients and intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: The overall mean Vw of teeth specimens was 0.553 ± 0.082 cm3, while the overall mean Va was 0.548 ± 0.079 cm3 (0.529 ± 0.078 cm3 for observer 1 and 0.567 ± 0.085 cm3 for observer 2). There were statistically significant differences between Va and Vw (P < .05). Between observer 1 and observer 2, Va measurements were statistically significantly different (P < .05). The interobserver and intraobserver correlation coefficient for Vw was high. Lastly, surface smoothing reduced the volume by 3% to 12%. Conclusions: In vivo determination of tooth volumes from CBCT data is feasible. The measurements slightly deviate from the physical volumes within −4% to 7%. Smoothing operations reduce volume measurements. Currently, no requirements for accuracy of volumetric determinations of tooth volume have been established.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 557-562
Author(s):  
M. Gulec ◽  
M. Tassoker ◽  
G. Magat ◽  
B. Lale ◽  
S. Ozcan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document