DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Limrachtamorn, S
Right arrow Articles by Farman, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Limrachtamorn, S
Right arrow Articles by Farman, A.
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2004) 33, 25-31
© 2004 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/18567887


RESEARCH

Array geometry for assessment of mandibular implant position using tuned aperture computed tomography (TACTTM)

S Limrachtamorn1, MJ Edge2, L Gettleman2, JP Scheetz2 and AG Farman*,2

1 Khon Kaen University College of Dentistry, 23 Mitraparp Road, T. Nai-Maung, A. Maung, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand; 2 School of Dentistry, The University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA

*Correspondence to: Dr Allan G Farman, Surgical and Hospital Dentistry, The University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA; Email: agfarm01{at}louisville.edu

Received 1 May 2003; revised 23 January 2004; accepted 3 February 2004

Objective: To evaluate observer faciolingual depth and vertical depth reading errors when using various X-ray beam array geometries to make basis images for tomosynthetic reconstruction using tuned aperture computed tomography (TACTTM).

Materials and methods: Tissue-equivalent models were constructed to replicate the position of dental implants in relation to simulated mandibular canals. X-ray beam geometries used to acquire the basis images for TACTTM integration included horizontal linear, vertical linear, and symmetric and asymmetric conical arrays. Twenty-one dentists trained in the use of TACTTM acted independently as observers. Tasks included: (1) determination of the relative position of the implant in relation to the simulated canal; and (2) measurement of the vertical depth and faciolingual (lateral) depth dimensions between these two structures. As the study did not involve repeated measures (only one measure was obtained from each observer on each of the two dependent variables), data for faciolingual depth and vertical depth reading errors were analysed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey's honestly significant different (HSD) procedure.

Results: Errors in determining the relative position of the implant to the simulated canal were most frequent when the linear horizontal projection geometry was employed for producing basis images (57% error for model #2 where the implant was lingually placed). The mean measurement errors for TACTTM images constructed using the various different projection arrays depended both on the structural relationship of anatomic features and the employed beam array geometry.

Conclusion: Conical beam arrays are preferred over linear beam arrays for constructing basis images used with TACTTM for the purpose of correlating the position of a mandibular dental implant in relation to the mandibular canal. They more consistently allowed the observers to establish a measurement of the faciolingual relationship of the implant to the canal. For vertical depth measurement of the relationship of a mandibular dental implant to the mandibular canal, TACTTM does not appear to have any advantage over individual simple transmission radiographic images.

Keywords: digital image processing; implant, dental; tomosynthesis







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2004 by the British Institute of Radiology.