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 Rodt, T
Right arrow Articles by Kaminsky, J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rodt, T
Right arrow Articles by Kaminsky, J
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2006) 35, 227-231
© 2006 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/22989395

RESEARCH

Evaluation of surface and volume rendering in 3D-CT of facial fractures

T Rodt*,1, SO Bartling2, JE Zajaczek2, MA Vafa3, T Kapapa1, O Majdani4, JK Krauss1, M Zumkeller1, H Matthies5, H Becker2 and J Kaminsky6

Departments of 1Neurosurgery,; 2 Neuroradiology,; 3 Radiology,; 4 Otorhinolaryngology and; 5 Medical Informatics, Hannover Medical School, Germany; 6 Department of Neurosurgery, Tuebingen University Medical School, Germany

*Correspondence to: Thomas Rodt, MD, Department of Neurosurgery, Hannover University Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany; Email: rodt{at}gmx.de

Received 4 July 2005; revised 20 October 2005; accepted 30 October 2005

Objectives: Three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) of facial fractures has been reported as beneficial using surface (SR) and volume rendering (VR). There are controversial statements concerning the preferable algorithm. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare SR and VR for clinical 3D-CT in facial fractures on an experimental basis.

Methods: Multislice CT was obtained in 22 patients with facial fractures using two data acquisition protocols. Five SR and VR post-processing protocols were applied. Five assessors independently evaluated the quality of visualization of the fracture gap and dislocated fragments as well as the overall image quality using a five-point rating scale. The potential benefit of the 3D-images for radiological diagnosis and presentation was evaluated. The influence of the data acquisition protocol was analysed.

Results: SR in general achieved better evaluation scores than VR at corresponding thresholds. Variation of evaluation scores for all criteria was found for SR and VR depending on the segmentation threshold. Apart from the overall image quality no significant influence of the data acquisition technique was found for the evaluated criteria.

Conclusions: SR provided sufficient and time efficient means for 3D-visualization of facial fractures in this study. No diagnostic benefit of VR over SR was found.

Keywords: computed tomography (CT); three-dimensional; facial fractures; images, processing; bones, CT






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2006 by the British Institute of Radiology.