Journal of orthodontics · 2021
Tooth and root size as determined from 0.25- and 0.30-mm voxel size cone-beam CT imaging when contrasted to micro-CT scans (0.06 mm): An ex vivo study.
СтатьяПоддержка 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.
Coutsiers Morell Gaston F, Berlin-Broner Yuli, Flores-Mir Carlos, Heo Giseon
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To quantify tooth volume differences from extracted teeth when using three different three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT)-based imaging modalities.
DESIGN: Ex vivo study.
SETTING: Laboratory and clinics of the University of Alberta.
METHODS: Cone-beam CT (CBCT) of 12 extracted teeth were scanned using 0.25- and 0.30-mm voxel size from CBCT and a 0.06-mm voxel size from micro-CT (reference standard). 3D reconstructions for each tooth from each imaging modality were made through the software ITK-SNAP®. The mean volume differences between each pair of scanning modalities were calculated and then compared and analysed through a repeated measures ANOVA.
RESULTS: The average overestimations of the teeth volume were 15.2% for the high-resolution CBCT and 28.1% for the low-resolution CBCT compared to micro-CT measurements. The differences in absolute volume were 81.6 mm3 and 152.8 mm3, respectively. All differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontists and researchers who assess root resorption through CBCT imaging should be aware that the depicted volumes may likely be overestimating tooth volume and camouflaging real root volumetric treatment changes.
DESIGN: Ex vivo study.
SETTING: Laboratory and clinics of the University of Alberta.
METHODS: Cone-beam CT (CBCT) of 12 extracted teeth were scanned using 0.25- and 0.30-mm voxel size from CBCT and a 0.06-mm voxel size from micro-CT (reference standard). 3D reconstructions for each tooth from each imaging modality were made through the software ITK-SNAP®. The mean volume differences between each pair of scanning modalities were calculated and then compared and analysed through a repeated measures ANOVA.
RESULTS: The average overestimations of the teeth volume were 15.2% for the high-resolution CBCT and 28.1% for the low-resolution CBCT compared to micro-CT measurements. The differences in absolute volume were 81.6 mm3 and 152.8 mm3, respectively. All differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontists and researchers who assess root resorption through CBCT imaging should be aware that the depicted volumes may likely be overestimating tooth volume and camouflaging real root volumetric treatment changes.