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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |