Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between cone-beam CT and multidetector-row CT by ROC analysis regarding diagnostic accuracy for artificial alveolar bone defects in the mandibular molar region

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Oral Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to clarify the difference in diagnostic accuracy for alveolar bone defects of the mandibular molar region between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multidetector-row CT (MDCT) by receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

Methods

Artificial alveolar bone defects in a dry human mandible were scanned with a CBCT system (CB MercuRay; Hitachi Medical Corporation) and an MDCT scanner (Aquilion 16-slice; Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation). The field of view (FOV) for the CT images was 5, 10, and 15 cm. Five radiologists observed the obtained DICOM CT images using OsiriX version 3.8.1 (OsiriX Foundation) on an iMac computer (Apple Computer Inc.), and rated the confidence levels for detecting the bone defects using a continuously distributed test. The areas under the ROC curves (Az values) were then calculated with ROCKIT 1.1B (Charles E Metz, The University of Chicago). The significance of differences in the Az values between CBCT and MDCT was tested by the Steel–Dwass method with a significance level of 5 %.

Results

The overall differences in the Az values between CBCT and MDCT were not significant. However, in the images with 15-cm FOV, the Az value for CBCT was significantly lower than that for MDCT.

Conclusions

The diagnostic accuracy for alveolar bone defects was comprehensively equal between CBCT and MDCT. In CBCT, a large FOV can be avoided to reduce the radiation exposure dose, because enlargement of the FOV does not improve the diagnostic accuracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arai Y, Tammisalo E, Iwai K, Hashimoto K, Shinoda K. Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1999;28:245–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gulsahi A, Ates U, Tirali RE, Cehreli SB. Use of cone-beam computed tomography in diagnosis of an otherwise undetected periapical lesion in an anomalous tooth. Oral Radiol. 2014;30:111–4. doi:10.1007/s11282-013-0130-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006;72:75–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Honda K, Arai Y, Kashima M, Takano Y, Sawada K, Ejima K, et al. Evaluation of the usefulness of the limited cone-beam CT (3DX) in the assessment of the thickness of the roof of the glenoid fossa of the temporomandibular joint. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33:391–5. doi:10.1259/dmfr/54316470.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Seeram E. Computed tomography: physical principles, clinical applications, and quality control. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Saunders Elsevier; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rosset A, Spadola L. OsiriX: an open-source software for navigating in multidimensional DICOM images. J Digit Imaging. 2004;17:205–16. doi:10.1007/s10278-004-1014-6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kalra MK, Maher MM, D’Souza R, Saini S. Multidetector computed tomography technology: current status and emerging developments. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2004;28:S2–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part I. on subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75:265–9. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y, Denis K, Hassan B, Li L, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part II: on 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75:270–4. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.04.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol. 1986;21:720–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rockette HE, Gur D, Metz CE. The use of continuous and discrete confidence judgments in receiver operating characteristic studies of diagnostic imaging techniques. Invest Radiol. 1992;27:169–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Imhof H, Czerny C, Dirisamer A. Head and neck imaging with MDCT. Eur J Radiol. 2003;45:S23–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bonel HM, Jäger L, Frei KA, Galiano S, Srivastav SK, Flohr T, et al. Optimization of MDCT of the wrist to achieve diagnostic image quality with minimum radiation exposure. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185:647–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McCollough CH, Primak AN, Braun N, Kofler J, Yu L, Christner J. Strategies for reducing radiation dose in CT. Radiol Clin North Am. 2009;47:27–40.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hsieh J. Image quality. In: Seweram E, editor. Computed tomography: physical principles, clinical applications, and quality control. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Saunders Elsevier; 2008. p. 188–217.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wojciechowski W, Urbanik A, Kownacki P, Kownacki S, Sowa A. Optimisation of the CT parameters with evaluation of MDCT double-scan images in the planning of the dental implant treatment. Pol J Radiol. 2009;74:69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fahrig R, Moreau M, Holdsworth DW. Three-dimensional computed tomographic reconstruction using a C-arm mounted XRII: correction of image intensifier distortion. Med Phys. 1997;24:1097–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. Cone-beam computed tomography: volume acquisition. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ, editors. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013. p. 185–98.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Seweram E. Multislice spiral/helical computed tomography: physical principles and instrumentation. In: Seweram E, editor. Computed tomography: physical principles, clinical applications, and quality control. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Saunders Elsevier; 2008. p. 226–304.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Baba R, Konno Y, Ueda K, Ikeda S. Comparison of flat-panel detector and image-intensifier detector for cone-beam CT. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2002;26:153–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Baba R, Ueda K, Okabe M. Using a flat-panel detector in high resolution cone beam CT for dental imaging. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33:285–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standards

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Department of Human Biology and Pathophysiology, School of Dentistry, Health Sciences University of Hokkaido, 1757 Kanazawa, Ishikari-Tobetsu, Hokkaido, 061-0293, Japan

    Seiji Minami, Takashi Ohnishi, Tomoaki Sano, Kazutaka Sugiura & Eiji Nakayama

Authors
  1. Seiji Minami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Takashi Ohnishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tomoaki Sano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kazutaka Sugiura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eiji Nakayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eiji Nakayama.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Minami, S., Ohnishi, T., Sano, T. et al. Comparison between cone-beam CT and multidetector-row CT by ROC analysis regarding diagnostic accuracy for artificial alveolar bone defects in the mandibular molar region. Oral Radiol 31, 97–104 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-014-0189-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-014-0189-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation