Cargando…
Comparison of Tissue Density in Hounsfield Units in Computed Tomography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography
OBJECTIVES: Bone quality and quantity assessment is one of the most important steps in implant treatment planning. Different methods such as computed tomography (CT) and recently suggested cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with lower radiation dose and less time and cost are used for bone density...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Tehran University of Medical Sciences
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5139928/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27928239 |
_version_ | 1782472332071141376 |
---|---|
author | Varshowsaz, Masoud Goorang, Sepideh Ehsani, Sara Azizi, Zeynab Rahimian, Sepideh |
author_facet | Varshowsaz, Masoud Goorang, Sepideh Ehsani, Sara Azizi, Zeynab Rahimian, Sepideh |
author_sort | Varshowsaz, Masoud |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Bone quality and quantity assessment is one of the most important steps in implant treatment planning. Different methods such as computed tomography (CT) and recently suggested cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with lower radiation dose and less time and cost are used for bone density assessment. This in vitro study aimed to compare the tissue density values in Hounsfield units (HUs) in CBCT and CT scans of different tissue phantoms with two different thicknesses, two different image acquisition settings and in three locations in the phantoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four different tissue phantoms namely hard tissue, soft tissue, air and water were scanned by three different CBCT and a CT system in two thicknesses (full and half) and two image acquisition settings (high and low kVp and mA). The images were analyzed at three sites (middle, periphery and intermediate) using eFilm software. The difference in density values was analyzed by ANOVA and correction coefficient test (P<0.05). RESULTS: There was a significant difference between density values in CBCT and CT scans in most situations, and CBCT values were not similar to CT values in any of the phantoms in different thicknesses and acquisition parameters or the three different sites. The correction coefficients confirmed the results. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT is not reliable for tissue density assessment. The results were not affected by changes in thickness, acquisition parameters or locations. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5139928 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Tehran University of Medical Sciences |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-51399282016-12-07 Comparison of Tissue Density in Hounsfield Units in Computed Tomography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography Varshowsaz, Masoud Goorang, Sepideh Ehsani, Sara Azizi, Zeynab Rahimian, Sepideh J Dent (Tehran) Original Article OBJECTIVES: Bone quality and quantity assessment is one of the most important steps in implant treatment planning. Different methods such as computed tomography (CT) and recently suggested cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with lower radiation dose and less time and cost are used for bone density assessment. This in vitro study aimed to compare the tissue density values in Hounsfield units (HUs) in CBCT and CT scans of different tissue phantoms with two different thicknesses, two different image acquisition settings and in three locations in the phantoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four different tissue phantoms namely hard tissue, soft tissue, air and water were scanned by three different CBCT and a CT system in two thicknesses (full and half) and two image acquisition settings (high and low kVp and mA). The images were analyzed at three sites (middle, periphery and intermediate) using eFilm software. The difference in density values was analyzed by ANOVA and correction coefficient test (P<0.05). RESULTS: There was a significant difference between density values in CBCT and CT scans in most situations, and CBCT values were not similar to CT values in any of the phantoms in different thicknesses and acquisition parameters or the three different sites. The correction coefficients confirmed the results. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT is not reliable for tissue density assessment. The results were not affected by changes in thickness, acquisition parameters or locations. Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2016-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5139928/ /pubmed/27928239 Text en Copyright© Dental Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Varshowsaz, Masoud Goorang, Sepideh Ehsani, Sara Azizi, Zeynab Rahimian, Sepideh Comparison of Tissue Density in Hounsfield Units in Computed Tomography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography |
title | Comparison of Tissue Density in Hounsfield Units in Computed Tomography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography |
title_full | Comparison of Tissue Density in Hounsfield Units in Computed Tomography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Tissue Density in Hounsfield Units in Computed Tomography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Tissue Density in Hounsfield Units in Computed Tomography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography |
title_short | Comparison of Tissue Density in Hounsfield Units in Computed Tomography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography |
title_sort | comparison of tissue density in hounsfield units in computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5139928/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27928239 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT varshowsazmasoud comparisonoftissuedensityinhounsfieldunitsincomputedtomographyandconebeamcomputedtomography AT goorangsepideh comparisonoftissuedensityinhounsfieldunitsincomputedtomographyandconebeamcomputedtomography AT ehsanisara comparisonoftissuedensityinhounsfieldunitsincomputedtomographyandconebeamcomputedtomography AT azizizeynab comparisonoftissuedensityinhounsfieldunitsincomputedtomographyandconebeamcomputedtomography AT rahimiansepideh comparisonoftissuedensityinhounsfieldunitsincomputedtomographyandconebeamcomputedtomography |