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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lagravère, M.
Right arrow Articles by Major, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lagravère, M.
Right arrow Articles by Major, P.
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2006) 35, 407-409
© 2006 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/55276404


RESEARCH

Density conversion factor determined using a cone-beam computed tomography unit NewTom QR-DVT 9000

MO Lagravère*,1, Y Fang2, J Carey2, RW Toogood2, GV Packota3 and PW Major1

1 Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; 2 Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; 3 Division of Oral Radiology, College of Dentistry, University of Saskatchewan, Canada

*Correspondence to: Dr Manuel O Lagravère, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Room 4048, Dentistry/Pharmacy Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2N8; Email: mlagravere{at}ualberta.ca

Received 15 June 2005; revised 20 January 2006; accepted 8 February 2006

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine a conversion coefficient for Hounsfield Units (HU) to material density (g cm–3) obtained from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom QR-DVT 9000) data.

Methods: Six cylindrical models of materials with different densities were made and scanned using the NewTom QR-DVT 9000 Volume Scanner. The raw data were converted into DICOM format and analysed using Merge eFilm and AMIRA to determine the HU of different areas of the models.

Results: There was no significant difference (P=0.846) between the HU given by each piece of software. A linear regression was performed using the density, {rho} (g cm–3), as the dependent variable in terms of the HU (H). The regression equation obtained was {rho}=0.002H–0.381 with an R2 value of 0.986. The standard error of the estimation is 27.104 HU in the case of the Hounsfield Units and 0.064 g cm–3 in the case of density.

Conclusion: CBCT provides an effective option for determination of material density expressed as Hounsfield Units.

Keywords: Hounsfield value; computerized tomography; bone density




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
S. Stratemann, J. Huang, K Maki, A. Miller, and D. Hatcher
Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., February 1, 2008; 37(2): 80 - 93.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




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