Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology · 2024
Is the assessment of the mandibular molar danger zone affected by field of view and voxel size in cone beam computed tomography examinations?
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Ferrari Daniella Ribeiro, Reis Tânia Maria Soares, Junqueira Rafael Binato, Kamburoğlu Kivanç, Küçük Özlem, Verner Francielle Silvestre
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To verify if assessment of the danger zone (DZ) in the mesial root of mandibular molars is affected by field of view (FOV) and voxel sizes in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans.
STUDY DESIGN: Forty mandibular molars were scanned by micro-computed tomography, creating the reference standard. The teeth were then submitted for CBCT scans with FOVs of 10 × 5.5 cm and 5 × 5.5 cm and voxel sizes of 0.4, 0.2, 0.15, and 0.075 mm3. The smallest dentin thickness in the DZ from the mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals was measured at 2, 4, and 6 mm apical to the root furcation. Descriptive statistics, paired t-tests, and intraclass correlation coefficients were used for statistical analysis with significance established at P < .05.
RESULTS: All CBCT measurements overestimated the DZ dentin thickness (P < .001) compared to the reference standard. The greatest overestimation occurred in the 5 × 5.5 cm FOV with 0.4 mm3 voxels (P = .007). Dentin thickness measured with the 5 × 5.5 cm FOV and 0.075 mm3 voxels was significantly smaller and produced the best ICC value with the reference standard (0.936).
CONCLUSIONS: CBCT overestimates the dentin thickness of the DZ regardless of FOV and voxel sizes. The 5 × 5.5 cm FOV showed the best performance with the 0.075 mm3 voxel size, but it performed poorly with 0.4 mm3 voxels.
STUDY DESIGN: Forty mandibular molars were scanned by micro-computed tomography, creating the reference standard. The teeth were then submitted for CBCT scans with FOVs of 10 × 5.5 cm and 5 × 5.5 cm and voxel sizes of 0.4, 0.2, 0.15, and 0.075 mm3. The smallest dentin thickness in the DZ from the mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals was measured at 2, 4, and 6 mm apical to the root furcation. Descriptive statistics, paired t-tests, and intraclass correlation coefficients were used for statistical analysis with significance established at P < .05.
RESULTS: All CBCT measurements overestimated the DZ dentin thickness (P < .001) compared to the reference standard. The greatest overestimation occurred in the 5 × 5.5 cm FOV with 0.4 mm3 voxels (P = .007). Dentin thickness measured with the 5 × 5.5 cm FOV and 0.075 mm3 voxels was significantly smaller and produced the best ICC value with the reference standard (0.936).
CONCLUSIONS: CBCT overestimates the dentin thickness of the DZ regardless of FOV and voxel sizes. The 5 × 5.5 cm FOV showed the best performance with the 0.075 mm3 voxel size, but it performed poorly with 0.4 mm3 voxels.