Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025
Exploring Dental Anatomy: An Ex Vivo Comparative Study Between Photon-Counting Detector CT and Cone-Beam CT.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Al-Haj Husain Adib, Benz Fabian, Mergen Victor, Valdec Silvio, Winklhofer Sebastian, Alkadhi Hatem, Essig Harald, Frauenfelder Thomas, Spin-Neto Rubens, Stadlinger Bernd
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this ex vivo study was to assess the performance of photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) compared with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) at equivalent radiation doses for detecting and evaluating mandibular and dental anatomical structures in porcine cadavers.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This intermodal comparative study evaluated imaging protocols at three radiation dose levels (high: 360 μSv, standard: 145 μSv, low: 20 μSv) in six porcine cadaver heads, analyzing 12 CBCT and 18 PCD-CT volumes. Two blinded observers assessed image quality, artifact susceptibility, and diagnostic interpretability using a 5-point Likert scale (5 = highest, 1 = lowest). Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and interobserver reliability, assessed by weighted kappa (κ) analysis.
RESULTS: PCD-CT either matched or outperformed CBCT at standard- and low-dose protocols, demonstrating superior anatomy coverage, density, contrast, and less artifact susceptibility. High- and standard-dose protocols achieved perfect scores 5 (SD = 0). At low-dose levels, PCD-CT showed slightly lower scores but still outperformed CBCT. PCD-CT showed minimal artifacts, with no significant artifacts in high and standard doses. Inter- and intra-reader reliability was higher for PCD-CT (κ: 0.694-1; p < 0.001) compared to CBCT (0.55-0.916; p < 0.001), with the difference being largest at low doses.
CONCLUSION: PCD-CT outperforms CBCT in diagnostic interpretability and artifact reduction across various radiation dose levels, offering a promising alternative for dentomaxillofacial imaging that aligns with the ALADAIP principle.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This intermodal comparative study evaluated imaging protocols at three radiation dose levels (high: 360 μSv, standard: 145 μSv, low: 20 μSv) in six porcine cadaver heads, analyzing 12 CBCT and 18 PCD-CT volumes. Two blinded observers assessed image quality, artifact susceptibility, and diagnostic interpretability using a 5-point Likert scale (5 = highest, 1 = lowest). Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and interobserver reliability, assessed by weighted kappa (κ) analysis.
RESULTS: PCD-CT either matched or outperformed CBCT at standard- and low-dose protocols, demonstrating superior anatomy coverage, density, contrast, and less artifact susceptibility. High- and standard-dose protocols achieved perfect scores 5 (SD = 0). At low-dose levels, PCD-CT showed slightly lower scores but still outperformed CBCT. PCD-CT showed minimal artifacts, with no significant artifacts in high and standard doses. Inter- and intra-reader reliability was higher for PCD-CT (κ: 0.694-1; p < 0.001) compared to CBCT (0.55-0.916; p < 0.001), with the difference being largest at low doses.
CONCLUSION: PCD-CT outperforms CBCT in diagnostic interpretability and artifact reduction across various radiation dose levels, offering a promising alternative for dentomaxillofacial imaging that aligns with the ALADAIP principle.