Cargando…

Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model

OBJECTIVES: Compared with multirow detector CT (MDCT), specimen (ex vivo) micro-CT (μCT) has a significantly higher (~ 30 x) spatial resolution and is considered the gold standard for assessing bone above the cellular level. However, it is expensive and time-consuming, and when applied in vivo, the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bissinger, Oliver, Kirschke, Jan S., Probst, Florian Andreas, Stauber, Martin, Wolff, Klaus-Dietrich, Haller, Bernhard, Götz, Carolin, Plank, Christian, Kolk, Andreas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5120815/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27880788
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166540
_version_ 1782469304001757184
author Bissinger, Oliver
Kirschke, Jan S.
Probst, Florian Andreas
Stauber, Martin
Wolff, Klaus-Dietrich
Haller, Bernhard
Götz, Carolin
Plank, Christian
Kolk, Andreas
author_facet Bissinger, Oliver
Kirschke, Jan S.
Probst, Florian Andreas
Stauber, Martin
Wolff, Klaus-Dietrich
Haller, Bernhard
Götz, Carolin
Plank, Christian
Kolk, Andreas
author_sort Bissinger, Oliver
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Compared with multirow detector CT (MDCT), specimen (ex vivo) micro-CT (μCT) has a significantly higher (~ 30 x) spatial resolution and is considered the gold standard for assessing bone above the cellular level. However, it is expensive and time-consuming, and when applied in vivo, the radiation dose accumulates considerably. The aim of this study was to examine whether the lower resolution of the widely used MDCT is sufficient to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate bone regeneration in rats. METHODS: Forty critical-size defects (5mm) were placed in the mandibular angle of rats and covered with coated bioactive titanium implants to promote bone healing. Five time points were selected (7, 14, 28, 56 and 112 days). μCT and MDCT were used to evaluate the defect region to determine the bone volume (BV), tissue mineral density (TMD) and bone mineral content (BMC). RESULTS: MDCT constantly achieved higher BV values than μCT (10.73±7.84 mm(3) vs. 6.62±4.96 mm(3), p<0.0001) and consistently lower TMD values (547.68±163.83 mm(3) vs. 876.18±121.21 mm(3), p<0.0001). No relevant difference was obtained for BMC (6.48±5.71 mm(3) vs. 6.15±5.21 mm(3), p = 0.40). BV and BMC showed very strong correlations between both methods, whereas TMD was only moderately correlated (r = 0.87, r = 0.90, r = 0.68, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Due to partial volume effects, MDCT overestimated BV and underestimated TMD but accurately determined BMC, even in small volumes, compared with μCT. Therefore, if bone quantity is a sufficient end point, a considerable number of animals and costs can be saved, and compared with in vivo μCT, the required dose of radiation can be reduced.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5120815
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51208152016-12-15 Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model Bissinger, Oliver Kirschke, Jan S. Probst, Florian Andreas Stauber, Martin Wolff, Klaus-Dietrich Haller, Bernhard Götz, Carolin Plank, Christian Kolk, Andreas PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVES: Compared with multirow detector CT (MDCT), specimen (ex vivo) micro-CT (μCT) has a significantly higher (~ 30 x) spatial resolution and is considered the gold standard for assessing bone above the cellular level. However, it is expensive and time-consuming, and when applied in vivo, the radiation dose accumulates considerably. The aim of this study was to examine whether the lower resolution of the widely used MDCT is sufficient to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate bone regeneration in rats. METHODS: Forty critical-size defects (5mm) were placed in the mandibular angle of rats and covered with coated bioactive titanium implants to promote bone healing. Five time points were selected (7, 14, 28, 56 and 112 days). μCT and MDCT were used to evaluate the defect region to determine the bone volume (BV), tissue mineral density (TMD) and bone mineral content (BMC). RESULTS: MDCT constantly achieved higher BV values than μCT (10.73±7.84 mm(3) vs. 6.62±4.96 mm(3), p<0.0001) and consistently lower TMD values (547.68±163.83 mm(3) vs. 876.18±121.21 mm(3), p<0.0001). No relevant difference was obtained for BMC (6.48±5.71 mm(3) vs. 6.15±5.21 mm(3), p = 0.40). BV and BMC showed very strong correlations between both methods, whereas TMD was only moderately correlated (r = 0.87, r = 0.90, r = 0.68, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Due to partial volume effects, MDCT overestimated BV and underestimated TMD but accurately determined BMC, even in small volumes, compared with μCT. Therefore, if bone quantity is a sufficient end point, a considerable number of animals and costs can be saved, and compared with in vivo μCT, the required dose of radiation can be reduced. Public Library of Science 2016-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5120815/ /pubmed/27880788 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166540 Text en © 2016 Bissinger et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bissinger, Oliver
Kirschke, Jan S.
Probst, Florian Andreas
Stauber, Martin
Wolff, Klaus-Dietrich
Haller, Bernhard
Götz, Carolin
Plank, Christian
Kolk, Andreas
Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model
title Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model
title_full Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model
title_fullStr Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model
title_full_unstemmed Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model
title_short Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model
title_sort micro-ct vs. whole body multirow detector ct for analysing bone regeneration in an animal model
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5120815/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27880788
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166540
work_keys_str_mv AT bissingeroliver microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
AT kirschkejans microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
AT probstflorianandreas microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
AT staubermartin microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
AT wolffklausdietrich microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
AT hallerbernhard microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
AT gotzcarolin microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
AT plankchristian microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
AT kolkandreas microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel