This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Stratemann, S. Articles by Hatcher, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stratemann, S. Articles by Hatcher, D.

Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures

¹ Division of Orthodontics, Department of Orofacial Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of California at San Francisco, USA, ² Department of Orthodontics, Showa University, Tokyo, Japan

*Correspondence to: Arthur J Miller, PhD Professor, Division of Orthodontics, Department of Orofacial Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143–0438, USA; E-mail: art.miller{at}ucsf.edu

Received 5 December 2006; revised 17 April 2007; accepted 19 April 2007

Objectives: The goal of this study was to determine the accuracy of measuring linear distances between landmarks commonly used in orthodontic analysis on a human skull using two cone beam CT (CBCT) systems.

Methods: Measurements of length were taken using volumetric data from two CBCT systems and were compared with physical measures using a calliper applied to one human adult skull. Landmarks were identified with chromium steel balls embedded at 32 cranial and 33 mandibular landmarks and the linear measures were taken with a digital calliper. The skull was then scanned with two different CBCT systems: the NewTom® QR DVT 9000 (Aperio Inc, Sarasota, FL) and the Hitachi MercuRay (Hitachi Medico Technology, Tokyo, Japan). CT data including the landmark point data were threshold segmented using CyberMed's CB Works software (CB Works 1.0, CyberMed Inc., Seoul, Korea). The resulting segmentations were exported from CB Works as VRML (WRL) files to Amira software (Amira 3.1, Mercury Computer Systems GmbH, Berlin, Germany).

Results: The error was small compared with the gold standard of the physical calliper measures for both the NewTom (0.07±0.41 mm) and CB MercuRay (0.00±0.22 mm) generated data. Absolute error to the gold standard was slightly positive, indicating minor compression relative to the calliper measurement. The error was slightly smaller in the CB MercuRay than in the NewTom, probably related to a broader greyscale range for describing beam attenuation in 12-bit vs 8-bit data.

Conclusions: The volumetric data rendered with both CBCT systems provided highly accurate data compared with the gold standard of physical measures directly from the skulls, with less than 1% relative error.

Keywords: cone beam computed tomography; mandible; craniofacial