Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Oral Radiology
Published in: Oral Radiology 3/2019

Open Access 01-09-2019 | Original Article

Comparability of dental implant site ridge measurements using ultra-low-dose multidetector row computed tomography combined with filtered back-projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and model-based iterative reconstruction

Authors: Asma’a Abdurrahman Al-Ekrish, Reema Al-Shawaf, Wafa Alfaleh, Romed Hörmann, Wolfgang Puelacher, Gerlig Widmann

Published in: Oral Radiology | Issue 3/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To assess the linear measurements of edentulous ridges recorded from multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) images obtained by a previously untested ultra-low dose in combination with filtered back-projection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR), and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR).

Methods

Three cadavers were imaged using a reference protocol with a standard dose and FBP (volume CT dose index (CTDIvol): 29.4 mGy) and two ultra-low-dose protocols, LD1 and LD2 (CTDIvol: 0.53 and 0.29 mGy). All test examinations were reconstructed with FBP, ASIR 50, ASIR 100, and MBIR. Linear measurements from the images of the edentulous ridges recorded from the test protocols were compared with those from the reference using a one-sample t test, Bland–Altman plots, and linear regression. Statistical significance was set at a p value of 0.05.

Results

The one-sample t test demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the measurements from the reference protocol and all test protocols. The difference was not clinically significant for the following three test protocols: LD1/FBP, LD1/ASIR 50, and LD2/FBP. Bland–Altman plots with linear regression showed no systematic variation between the measurements obtained with the reference protocol and these three test protocols.

Conclusions

The lowest-dose protocol to demonstrate comparable measurements with a standard MDCT dose was CTDIvol 0.29 mGy with FBP. These results must be considered with caution for areas of the jaws with thin cortication. The results in areas of thin cortication should be verified by studies with larger sample sizes at such areas and comparison with true gold standard measurements.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-third Session, Supplement No. 46; New York: United Nations; 2010.
2.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Achievements of the past 50 years and addressing the needs of the future. In: NCRP fiftieth annual meeting program; 2014.
3.
Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;106(1):106–14.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Ludlow J, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson D, et al. Effective dose of dental CBCT—a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(1):20140197.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Al-Ekrish A, Alfadda S, Tamimi D, Alfaleh W, Hörmann R, Puelacher W, et al. Do ultra-low multidetector computed tomography doses and iterative reconstruction techniques affect subjective classification of bone type at dental implant sites? Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31(5):465–70.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Widmann G, Al-Shawaf R, Schullian P, Al-Sadhan R, Hormann R, Al-Ekrish AA. Effect of ultra-low doses, ASIR and MBIR on density and noise levels of MDCT images of dental implant sites. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(5):2225–34.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Silva AC, Lawder HJ, Hara A, Kujak J, Pavlicek W. Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(1):191–9.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Widmann G, Dalla Torre D, Hoermann R, Schullian P, Gassner EM, Bale R, et al. Ultralow-dose computed tomography imaging for surgery of midfacial and orbital fractures using ASIR and MBIR. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44(4):441–6.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Al-Ekrish A, Al-Shawaf R, Schullian P, Al-Sadhan R, Hörmann R, Widmann G. Validity of linear measurements of the jaws using ultralow-dose MDCT and the iterative techniques of ASIR and MBIR. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2016;11(10):1791–801.CrossRefPubMed
10.
McHanwell S, Brenner E, Chirculescu ARM, Drukker J, van Mameren H, Mazzotti G, et al. The legal and ethical framework governing body donation in Europe—a review of current practice and recommendations for good practice. Eur J Anat. 2008;12(1):1–24.
11.
Riederer BM, Bolt S, Brenner E, Bueno-Lopez JL, Cirulescu ARM, Davies DC, et al. The legal and ethical framework governing body donation in Europe—1st update on current practice. Eur J Anat. 2012;16(1):1–21.
12.
Platzer W, Putz R, Poisel S. Ein neues Konservierungs- und Aufbewahrungssystem für anatomisches Material. Acta Anat (Basel). 1978;102(1):60–7.CrossRef
13.
Christner JA, Kofler JM, McCollough CH. Estimating effective dose for CT using dose–length product compared with using organ doses: consequences of adopting International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 103 or dual-energy scanning. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(4):881–9.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Bland JM, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327(8476):307–10.CrossRef
15.
European Union. Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013. Laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. Off J Eur Union. 2014;17:13/1–13/73.
16.
Widmann G, Bischel A, Stratis A, Bosmans H, Jacobs R, Gassner EM, et al. Spatial and contrast resolution of ultralow dose dentomaxillofacial CT imaging using iterative reconstruction technology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017;46(4):20160452.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Al-Ekrish A, Alfaleh W, Hörmann R, Alabdulwahid A, Puelacher W, Widmann G. Localization of the inferior alveolar canal using ultralow dose CT with iterative reconstruction techniques. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018;47:20170477.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Cavalcanti MG, Haller JW, Vannier MW. Three-dimensional computed tomography landmark measurement in craniofacial surgical planning: experimental validation in vitro. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999;57(6):690–4.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Yang J, Cavalcanti MG, Ruprecht A, Vannier MW. 2-D and 3-D reconstructions of spiral computed tomography in localization of the inferior alveolar canal for dental implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999;87(3):369–74.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Kobayashi K, Shimoda S, Nakagawa Y, Yamamoto A. Accuracy in measurement of distance using limited cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(2):228–31.PubMed
21.
Al-Ekrish A, Ekram M. A comparative study of the accuracy and reliability of multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in the assessment of dental implant site dimensions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(2):67–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
23.
Rustemeyer P, Streubühr U, Suttmoeller J. Low-dose dental computed tomography: significant dose reduction without loss of image quality. Acta Radiol. 2004;45(8):847–53.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Suomalainen A, Vehmas T, Kortesniemi M, Robinson S, Peltola J. Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37(1):10–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparability of dental implant site ridge measurements using ultra-low-dose multidetector row computed tomography combined with filtered back-projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and model-based iterative reconstruction
Authors
Asma’a Abdurrahman Al-Ekrish
Reema Al-Shawaf
Wafa Alfaleh
Romed Hörmann
Wolfgang Puelacher
Gerlig Widmann
Publication date
01-09-2019
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published in
Oral Radiology / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 0911-6028
Electronic ISSN: 1613-9674
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-018-0350-z

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

Oral Radiology 3/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

Investigation of maxillary sinus volume relationships with nasal septal deviation, concha bullosa, and impacted or missing teeth using cone-beam computed tomography

Original Article

Comparison of temporomandibular joint shape and size in patients with facial asymmetry

Original Article

Determination of optimum exposure parameters for dentoalveolar structures of the jaws using the CB MercuRay system with cluster signal-to-noise analysis

Case Report

Abnormal positioning of the common carotid artery clinically diagnosed as a submandibular mass

Original Article

Protection evaluation of non-lead radiation-shielding fabric: preliminary exposure-dose study

Case Report

Diagnostic usefulness of panoramic imaging of the pterygopalatine fossa: case of a schwannoma causing pterygopalatine fossa expansion