Comparison of different digital imaging techniques for linear measurements

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the different types of digital systems on in vitro measurements of teeth and to evaluate the agreement between observers. Material and methods: A dried human skull, which was obtained from Anatomy laboratory was used in the study. Following measurements were made on cone-beam computed tomography, panoramic and periapical images of maxillary teeth by three observers: maximum tooth length T , maximum root length R , maximum crown width A and crown width at cemento-enamel junction B . The obtained data was entered in the SPSS 11.5 program and degree of precision was statistically analyzed. Results: Pearson’s correlation coefficient showed a high correlation between observers for A, B and T values on all digital systems and low correlation for R values. Significant variations between observers and techniques were found for R and T values. The reason for this difference is due to the measurements made in the periapical radiographs. Conclusion: When it is not possible to get CBCT imaging, panoramic radiography considering with magnification factor is recommended for linear measurements. Also it should be considered that periapical radiography can give different results than the original size of tooth depending on

Keywords

• Digital radiography, linear measurements, periapical radiography, panoramic radiography, cone-beam computed tomography

Farklı dijital görüntüleme sistemlerinde yapılan doğrusal ölçümlerin karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı farklı dijital sistemlerde dişler üzerinde invitro olarak yapılan ölçümlerin karşılaştırılması ve gözlemciler arası uyumun değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve yöntem: Çalışmada Anatomi laboratuvarından elde edilmiş kuru insan kafatası maksilla kullanılmıştır. Konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi, panoramik ve periapikal radyografi görüntülerinde maksilla üzerinde bulunan dişlerin maksimum uzunlukları T , maksimum kök uzunlukları R , maksimum kron genişliği A ve minesement birleşimdeki maksimum kron genişlikleri B 3 gözlemci tarafından ölçülmüştür. Veriler bilgisayar ortamında SPSS 11.5 programına aktarıldıktan sonra gözlemciler arası ve yöntemler arası uyum istatistiksel olarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Gözlemciler arası korelasyon 4 farklı dijital sistemde A,B ve T ölçümleri için yüksek olarak bulunurken R ölçümleri için düşük olarak bulunmuştur. Gözlemciler arası ve yöntemler arası uyumda ise R ve T değerlerinde istatistiksel olarak fark bulunmuştur. Bu farkın sebebinin ise periapikal radyografide yapılan ölçümlere bağlı olduğu görülmüştür. Sonuç: CBCT ile görüntülemenin yapılmadığı durumlarda mesafe ölçümlerinde magnifikasyon faktörü dikkate alınarak dijital panoramik radyografi kullanılması önerilmektedir. Diş hekimliğinde rutin olarak çekilen periapikal radyografilerin ise kullanılan dijital sistemin özelliklerine ve yazılım programına bağlı olarak dişin orijinal boyutundan farklı sonuçlar verebileceği göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır

Keywords

• Dijital radyografi, doğrusal ölçümler, periapikal radyorafi, panoramik radyografi, konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi

References

1. Volchansky A, P, Drummond S, Bönecker M. Technique for linear measurement on panoramic and periap- ical radiographs: a pilot study. Quintessence Int 2006; 37: 191-7. Cleaton-Jones
2. Fatemitabar SA, Nikgoo A. Multichan- chan- nel computed tomography versus conebeam co mputed tomography: linear accuracy of vitromeasurements of the maxilla for implantt in Placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Im- plants 2010; 25: 499-505.
3. Santos Tde S, Gomes AC, de Melo DG, Melo AR, Cavalcante JR, de Araşjo LC et al.Evaluation of reliability and reproducibility of linear measurements of cone-beam-com- puted tomography. Indian J Dent Res 2012; 23: 473-8.
4. Versteeg KH, Sanderink GC, Van Ginkel FC, Van der Stelt PF. Estimating dis- tances on direct digital images and convention- al radiographs. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128: 439–43.
5. Woolhiser GA, Brand JW, Hoen MM, Geist JR, Pikula AA, Pink FE. Accuracy of film-based, digital, and enhanced digital imag- es for endodontic length determination. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2005; 99: 499–504.
6. Kazzi D, Horner K, Qualtrough AC, Martinez-Beneyto Y, Rushton VE. A compara- tive study of three periapical radiographic techniques for endodontic working length es- timation. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 526–31.
7. Bosmans N, Ann P, Aly M, Willems G. The application of Kvaal’s dental age calcu- lations technique on panoramic dental radio- graphs. Forensic Sci Int 2005; 153: 208–12.
8. Kvaal SI, Kolltveit KM, Thomsen IO, Solheim T. Age estimation of adults from den- tal radiographs. Forensic Sci Int 1995; 74: 175–85.

9. Landa MI, Garamendi PM, Botella MC, Alemán I. Application of the method of Kvaal et al. to digital orthopantomograms. Int J Legal Med 2009; 123: 123–8.
10. Aglarcı OS, Yılmaz HH. Diş hekim- liğinde dijital radyografi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2010; 2: 45-52.
11. Farman AG, Levato CM, Gane D, Scarfe WC. In practise. How going digital will affect the dental Office. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139: 14-9.
12. Van Der Stelt PF. Filmless imaging: The uses of digital radiography in dental prac- tice. J Am Dent Assoc 2005; 136: 1379-87
13. Gormez O, Yilmaz HH. Image Post- Processing in Dental Practice. Eur J Dent. 2009; 3: 343–7.
14. Wyatt CC, Pharoah MJ. Imaging tech- niques and image interpretation for dental im- plant treatment. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11: 442-52.
15. Lingeshwar D, Dhanasekar B, Aparna IN. Diagnostic Imaging in Implant Dentistry. IJOICR 2010; 1: 147-53.
16. PA Monsour, R Dudhia. Implant radi- ography and radiology. Aust Dent J 2008; 53: 11–25
17. Duckworth JE, Judy PF, Goodson JM, Socransky SS. A method for geometric and densitometric standardization of intraoral radi- ographs. J Periodontol 1983; 54: 435-40.
18. Jeffcoat MK, Reddy MS, Webber RL, Williams RC, Ruttimann UE. Extraoral control of geometry for digital subtraction radiog- raphy. J Periodontal Res 1987; 22: 396-402.
19. Frederiksen NL, Bensen BW, Sokolowski TW. Effective dose and risk as- sessment from film tomography used for dental implant diagnostics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1994; 23: 123-7.
20. Reddy MS, Mayfield-Donahoo T, Vanderven FJ, Jeffcoat MK. A comparison of the diagnostic advantages of panoramic radiog- raphy and computed tomography scanning for placement of root form dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994; 5: 229-38.
21. Sonick M, Abrams J, Faiella RA. A comparison of the accuracy of periapical, pan- oramic, and computerized tomographic radio- graphs in locating the mandibular canal. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994; 9: 455-60.
22. Tal H, Moses O. A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomog- raphy in the planning of implant surgery. Den- tomaxillofac Radiol 1991; 20: 40-2.
23. Senem G, Yiğit Ö. Applications of cone beam computerized tomography in endo- dontics. GÜ Diş Hek Fak Derg 2010; 27: 207- 17.
24. Kamburoglu K, Kolsuz E, Kurt H, Kılıç C, Özen T, Paksoy CS. Accuracy of CBCT measurements of a human skull. J Digit Imaging 2011; 24: 87–793.
25. Stratemann SA, Huang JC, Maki K, Miller AJ, Hatcher DC. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures. ol 2008; 37: 80–93.
26. Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomography- derived surface models of different voxel siz- es. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2010; 137: 16-7.
27. Patel S, Dawood A, Ford TP, Whaites E.The potential applications of cone beam com puted tomography in the management of endo- dontic problems. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 818-30.
28. Nishikawa K, Suehiro A, H, Kousuge Y, Wakoh M, Sano T. Is linear distance measured by panoramic radiography reliable? Oral Radiol 2010; 26: 16–9. Sekine