Bone density: comparative evaluation of Hounsfield units in multislice and cone-beam computed tomography

The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of the bone density value of potential implant sites in HU obtained by a specific cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) device. In this study, the HU values obtained using a MSCT scanner were used as the gold standard. Twenty mandibles (40 potential implant sites) were scanned using an MSCT scanner (Somatom Sensation 40) and a CBCT scanner (i-CAT). The MSCT images were evaluated using the Syngo CT Workplace software and the CBCT images, using the XoranCat software. The images were evaluated twice by three oral radiologists, at 60 day intervals. The trabecular bone density of the same area was evaluated on both images. Intraclass coefficients (ICC) were calculated to examine the agreement between the examiners and between the two periods of evaluation. The bone density and area of the ROT were compared by the Student t test and Bland-Altman analysis. ICCs were excellent. The mean HU value obtained using CBCT (418.06) was higher than that obtained using MSCT (313.13), with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.0001). In addition, Bland-Altman analysis showed that the HU measures were not equivalent. In conclusion, the bone density in HU with CBCT images obtained using the device studied proved unreliable, since it was higher than that obtained using MSCT.26655055

Influence of scan mode (180 degrees/360 degrees) of the cone beam computed tomography for preoperative dental implant measurements

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of scan mode of the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the preoperative dental implant measurements. Material and methodsCompletely edentulous mandibles with entirely resorbed alveolar processes were selected for this study. Five regions were selected (incisor, canine, premolar, first molar, and second molar). The mandibles were scanned with Next Generation i-CAT CBCT unit (Imaging Sciences International, Inc, Hatfield, PA, USA) with half (180 degrees) and full (360 degrees) mode. Two oral radiologists performed vertical measurements in all selected regions; the measurements of half of the sample were repeated within an interval of 30days. The mandibles were sectioned using an electrical saw in all evaluated regions to obtain the gold standard. The intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated for the intra- and interobserver agreement. Descriptive statistics were calculated as mean, median, and standard deviation. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to determine the correlation between the measurements obtained in different scan mode with the gold standard. The significance level was 5%. ResultsThe values of intra- and interobserver reproducibility indicated a strong agreement. In the dental implant measurements, except the bone height of the second molar region in full scan mode (P=0.02), the Wilcoxon signed rank test did not show statistical significant difference with the gold standard (P>0.05). ConclusionsBoth modes provided real measures, necessary when performing implant planning; however, half scan mode uses smaller doses, following the principle of effectiveness. We believe that this method should be used because of the best dose-effect relationship and offer less risk to the patient.252E155E15