Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Coutsiers Morell, Gaston F, Berlin-Broner, Yuli, Flores-Mir, Carlos, Heo, Giseon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9160778/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34903069
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14653125211066106
_version_ 1784719341581762560
author Coutsiers Morell, Gaston F
Berlin-Broner, Yuli
Flores-Mir, Carlos
Heo, Giseon
author_facet Coutsiers Morell, Gaston F
Berlin-Broner, Yuli
Flores-Mir, Carlos
Heo, Giseon
author_sort Coutsiers Morell, Gaston F
collection PubMed
description 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 mm(3) and 152.8 mm(3), 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9160778
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91607782022-06-03 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 Coutsiers Morell, Gaston F Berlin-Broner, Yuli Flores-Mir, Carlos Heo, Giseon J Orthod Scientific Section 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 mm(3) and 152.8 mm(3), 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. SAGE Publications 2021-12-14 2022-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9160778/ /pubmed/34903069 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14653125211066106 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Scientific Section
Coutsiers Morell, Gaston F
Berlin-Broner, Yuli
Flores-Mir, Carlos
Heo, Giseon
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Scientific Section
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9160778/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34903069
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14653125211066106
work_keys_str_mv AT coutsiersmorellgastonf toothandrootsizeasdeterminedfrom025and030mmvoxelsizeconebeamctimagingwhencontrastedtomicroctscans006mmanexvivostudy
AT berlinbroneryuli toothandrootsizeasdeterminedfrom025and030mmvoxelsizeconebeamctimagingwhencontrastedtomicroctscans006mmanexvivostudy
AT floresmircarlos toothandrootsizeasdeterminedfrom025and030mmvoxelsizeconebeamctimagingwhencontrastedtomicroctscans006mmanexvivostudy
AT heogiseon toothandrootsizeasdeterminedfrom025and030mmvoxelsizeconebeamctimagingwhencontrastedtomicroctscans006mmanexvivostudy