BACKGROUND: There are many cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanners available on the market: detector technology, algorithm precision, and scanner settings influence image quality. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of linear measurements made on images of the same sample obtained using two different CBCT scanners. METHODS: Twenty-eight linear measurements between orthodontic anatomical landmarks that were marked with gutta-percha points on a fresh sacrificed lamb head were taken three times. The head was scanned with two CBCT scanners using different scanning parameters. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) images were reconstructed and the same measurements were taken three times by the same operator. Measurements were repeated 4 months later by two operators. RESULTS: There was minimal, clinically significant difference between the measurements taken with the digital caliper or CBCT scanners, but there was no difference between the two different scanners. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clinically significant difference between these two scanners; a difference was found between the CBCT and real anatomical measurements in only a few cases.

Ex vivo measurement reliability using two different cbct scanners for orthodontic purposes.

DALESSANDRI, DOMENICO;
2012

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are many cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanners available on the market: detector technology, algorithm precision, and scanner settings influence image quality. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of linear measurements made on images of the same sample obtained using two different CBCT scanners. METHODS: Twenty-eight linear measurements between orthodontic anatomical landmarks that were marked with gutta-percha points on a fresh sacrificed lamb head were taken three times. The head was scanned with two CBCT scanners using different scanning parameters. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) images were reconstructed and the same measurements were taken three times by the same operator. Measurements were repeated 4 months later by two operators. RESULTS: There was minimal, clinically significant difference between the measurements taken with the digital caliper or CBCT scanners, but there was no difference between the two different scanners. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clinically significant difference between these two scanners; a difference was found between the CBCT and real anatomical measurements in only a few cases.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11368/2759177
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 6
  • Scopus 20
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 18
social impact