Comparative assessment of subjective image quality of panoramic radiograph and cone-beam CT image between two different cone-beam CT machines
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the subjective image quality of panoramic radiograph and CBCT image between two CBCT machines (DentiiScan Duo and X-mind Trium). Three examiners investigated radiographs from 60 patients requiring implant or impaction surgery in each group. The five-rating satisfaction score was utilized to assess 7 and 11 anatomical structures on
panoramic radiograph and CBCT image, respectively. The median rating was adequate to excellent for panoramic radiographs. The statistical differences were forward at inferior border of mandible and maxillary tuberosity. DentiiScan Duo images achieved significantly higher satisfaction score of the inferior border of mandible than those of X-mind Trium (p < 0.001), whereas X-mind Trium images achieved significantly higher satisfaction score of the tuberosity (p = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in satisfaction score on CBCT images between 2 CBCT machines.The median satisfaction score was adequate to good in anatomical structures as follows:mandibular incisive canal, lingual foramen, mandibular canal, mental foramen, sublingual fossa,
floor of nose, nasopalatine canal and floor of maxillary sinus
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The opinions and content expressed in the articles are solely those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy and correctness of their work.
Any reuse, reproduction, or redistribution of the articles, content, data, or images in other forms requires prior written permission from the Thai Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
References
Greenberg AM. Cone beam computed tomography scanning and diagnosis for dental implants. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2015;27:185-202.
Block MS, Emery RW. Static or dynamic navigation for implant placement-choosing the method of guidance. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74:269-77.
Prapayasatok S, Janhom A, Verochana K, Mahasantipiya P, Kambangton J, Arnon C. Subjective image quality of cone-beam CT, developed by NSTDA, Thailand. CM Dent J. 2014;35:35-49.
Demehri S, Muhit A, Zbijewski W, Stayman JW, Yorkston J, Packard N, et al. Assessment of image quality in soft tissue and bone visualization tasks for a dedicated extremity cone-beam CT system. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:1742-51.
White SC, Heslop EW, Hollender LG, Mosier KM, Ruprecht A, Shrout MK, et al. Parameters of radiologic care: an official report of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2001;91:498-511.
Dreiseidler T, Mischkowski RA, Neugebauer J, Ritter L, Zoller JE. Comparison of cone-beam imaging with orthopantomography and computerized tomography for assessment in presurgical implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:216-25.
Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155-63.
Langland OE, Langlais RP, Preece JW. Principles of dental imaging. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.
Ramakrishna Pawar R, Makdissi J. The role of focal block (trough/plane) in panoramic radiography: why do some structures appear blurred out on these images? Radiography. 2014;20:167-70.
Monsour PA, Dudhia R. Implant radiography and radiology. Aust Dent J. 2008;53 Suppl 1:S11-25.
Jacobs R, Mraiwa N, Van Steenberghe D, Sanderink G, Quirynen M. Appearance of the mandibular incisive canal on panoramic radiographs. Surg Radiol Anat. 2004;26:329- 33.
Neves FS, Crusoe-Souza M, Franco LC, Caria PH, Bonfim-Almeida P, Crusoe-Rebello I. Canalis sinuosus: a rare anatomical variation. Surg Radiol Anat. 2012;34:563-6.
Shan T, Qu Y, Huang X, Gu L. Cone beam computed tomography analysis of accessory canals of the canalis sinuosus: a prevalent but often overlooked anatomical variation in the anterior maxilla. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126:560-8.
Lopes Dos Santos G, Ikuta CRS, Salzedas LMP, Miyahara GI, Tjioe KC. Canalis sinuosus: an anatomic repair that may prevent success of dental implants in anterior maxilla. J Prosthodont. 2020;29:751-5.
Aung CMS, Panmekiat S, Pimkhaokham A. The study of the alveolar antral artery canal in using cone beam computed tomography. M Dent J. 2017;37:63-9.
Laovoravit V, Kretapirom K, Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri S. Prevalence and morphometric analysis of the alveolar antral artery in a group of Thai population by cone beam computed tomography. Oral Radiol. 2021;37:452-62.
Mishra SK, Nahar R, Gaddale R, Chowdhary R. Identification of anterior loop in different populations to avoid nerve injury during surgical procedures-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;25:159-74.
Jacobs R, Mraiwa N, vanSteenberghe D, Gijbels F, Quirynen M. Appearance, location, course, and morphology of the mandibular incisive canal: an assessment on spiral CT scan. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002;31:322-7.
Apostolakis D, Brown JE. The anterior loop of the inferior alveolar nerve: prevalence, measurement of its length and a recommendation for interforaminal implant installation based on cone beam CT imaging. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:1022-30.
Ngeow WC, Dionysius DD, Ishak H, Nambiar P. A radiographic study on the visualization of the anterior loop in dentate subjects of different age groups. J Oral Sci. 2009;51:231-7.
Katsumata A, Hirukawa A, Okumura S, Naitoh M, Fujishita M, Ariji E, et al. Relationship between density variability and imaging volume size in cone-beam computerized tomographic scanning of the maxillofacial region: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107:420-5.
Shelley AM, Brunton P, Horner K. Subjective image quality assessment of cross sectional imaging methods for the symphyseal region of the mandible prior to dental implant placement. J Dent. 2011;39:764-70.