Top

Oral Radiology

Published in:

01-10-2021 | Computed Tomography | Original Article

Effect of voxel size on detection of fenestration, dehiscence and furcation defects using cone-beam computed tomography

Authors: Masoumeh Eftekhar, Hanieh Kaviani, Nina Rouzmeh, Aitin Torabinia, Alireza Akbarzadeh Baghban

Published in: Oral Radiology | Issue 4/2021

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the effect of voxel size on detection of fenestration, dehiscence, and furcation defects using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Materials and methods

This in vitro, experimental study evaluated 4 sheep skulls with both the maxilla and mandible accompanied by the surrounding soft tissue. Fenestration (n = 30), dehiscence (n = 65), and furcation defects (n = 46; 18 grade I, 25 grade II, and 3 grade III) were randomly created by round and needle burs in both jaws, and 40 areas served as control sites. CBCT scans were obtained with 0.300 and 0.150 mm³ voxel sizes and 8 × 11cm² field of view (FOV), and were randomly observed by four observers (two oral and maxillofacial radiologists and two periodontists). The kappa values, sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each voxel size and compared using paired t test.

Results

By an increase in image resolution, diagnostic sensitivity increased while specificity decreased. The kappa values for fenestration (0.602–0.623), and grade III furcation defects (0.903–1.00) were optimal (> 0.6), and almost similar for both voxel sizes. The kappa values for dehiscence, and grades I and II furcation defects were unfavorable (< 0.6) and almost similar for both voxel sizes, except for grade I furcation defects, which had a significant difference in kappa values between the two voxel sizes (0.014 and 0.34).

Conclusion

Smaller voxel size had higher sensitivity and lower specificity for detection of all defects except for grade I furcation defects, for which the smaller voxel size had higher sensitivity and higher specificity.

Available only for authorised users

Offenbacher S. Periodontal diseases: pathogenesis. Ann Periodontol. 1996;1(1):821–78. https://doi.org/10.1902/annals.1996.1.1.821.CrossRefPubMed

Sun Z, Smith T, Kortam S, Kim DG, Tee BC, Fields H. Effect of bone thickness on alveolar bone-height measurements from cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139(2):e117–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.08.016.CrossRefPubMed

Albandar JM, Rams TE. Global epidemiology of periodontal diseases: an overview. Periodontol. 2000;2002(29):7–10. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0757.2002.290101.x.CrossRef

Kamburoglu K, Murat S, Kilic C, Yuksel S, Avsever H, Farman A, et al. Accuracy of CBCT images in the assessment of buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant defects: effect of field of view. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014;43(4):20130332. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130332.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

de-Azevedo-Vaz SL, Vasconcelos Kde F, Neves FS, Melo SL, Campos PS, Haiter-Neto F. Detection of periimplant fenestration and dehiscence with the use of two scan modes and the smallest voxel sizes of a cone-beam computed tomography device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115(1):121–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.10.003.

Ding Q, Zhang L, Geraets W, Wu W, Zhou Y, Wismeijer D, et al. Association between peri-implant bone morphology and marginal bone loss: a retrospective study on implant-supported mandibular overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32(1):147–55. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4922.CrossRefPubMed

Jeffcoat MK. Current concepts in periodontal disease testing. J Am Dent Assoc. 1994;125(8):1071–8. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1994.0136.CrossRefPubMed

Reddy MS. Radiographic methods in the evaluation of periodontal therapy. J Periodontol. 1992;63(Suppl 12S):1078–84. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1992.63.12s.1078.CrossRefPubMed

Tyndall DA, Rathore S. Cone-beam CT diagnostic applications: caries, periodontal bone assessment, and endodontic applications. Dent Clin North Am. 2008;52(4):825–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.002 ((vii)).CrossRefPubMed

10.

Tugnait A, Clerehugh V, Hirschmann PN. The usefulness of radiographs in diagnosis and management of periodontal diseases: a review. J Dent. 2000;28(4):219–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-5712(99)00062-7.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Braun X, Ritter L, Jervoe-Storm PM, Frentzen M. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT for periodontal lesions. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(4):1229–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1106-0.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Mol A. Imaging methods in periodontology. Periodontol. 2000;2004(34):34–48. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0906-6713.2003.003423.x.CrossRef

13.

Jeffcoat MK, Wang IC, Reddy MS. Radiographic diagnosis in periodontics. Periodontol. 2000;1995(7):54–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1995.tb00036.x.CrossRef

14.

Meyer MS, Joshipura K, Giovannucci E, Michaud DS. A review of the relationship between tooth loss, periodontal disease, and cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19(9):895–907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-008-9163-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Yang J. Diagnostic validity (or acuity) of 2D CCD versus 3D CBCT-images for assessing periodontal breakdown. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;104(3):395–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.03.012.CrossRefPubMed

16.

SD B, A L. 2Dand 3D images generated by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for dentomaxillofacial investigations. In: CARS ’98 Proceedings of the 12th international Symposium and Exhibition: Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Amsterdam: Elsevier. 1998:792–7.

17.

Fuhrmann RA, Wehrbein H, Langen HJ, Diedrich PR. Assessment of the dentate alveolar process with high resolution computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1995;24(1):50–4. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.24.1.8593909.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Bayat S, Talaeipour AR, Sarlati F. Detection of simulated periodontal defects using cone-beam CT and digital intraoral radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2016;45(6):20160030. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160030.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Katsumata A, Hirukawa A, Okumura S, Naitoh M, Fujishita M, Ariji E, et al. Relationship between density variability and imaging volume size in cone-beam computerized tomographic scanning of the maxillofacial region: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107(3):420–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.05.049.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Ballrick JW, Palomo JM, Ruch E, Amberman BD, Hans MG. Image distortion and spatial resolution of a commercially available cone-beam computed tomography machine. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(4):573–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.025.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Da Silveira PFFM, Oliveira HW, Vizzotto MB, Montagner F, Silveira HL, et al. CBCT-based volume of simulated root resorption—influence of FOV and voxel size. Int Endod J. 2015;48(10):959–65.CrossRef

22.

Kamburoglu K, Murat S, Kolsuz E, Kurt H, Yuksel S, Paksoy C. Comparative assessment of subjective image quality of cross-sectional cone-beam computed tomography scans. J Oral Sci. 2011;53(4):501–8. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.53.501.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kolsuz ME, Bagis N, Orhan K, Avsever H, Demiralp KO. Comparison of the influence of FOV sizes and different voxel resolutions for the assessment of periodontal defects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(7):20150070. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150070.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Obuchowski NA, Zhou XH. Prospective studies of diagnostic test accuracy when disease prevalence is low. Biostatistics. 2002;3(4):477–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/3.4.477.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Li J, Fine J. On sample size for sensitivity and specificity in prospective diagnostic accuracy studies. Stat Med. 2004;23:2537–50.CrossRef

26.

Machin D, Campbell MJ, Tan SB, Tan SH Sample Size Tables for Clinical Studies, . Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, United Kingdom. 2008;Third Edition.

27.

Zhou XH, Obuchowski, p.n.A., McClish, D.K. Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine. Wiley-Interscience, New York. 2002.

28.

Schork MaW, G. Number of Observations Required for the Comparison of Two CorrelatedProportions. Commun Stat-Simula Computa, 1980;B9(4), 349–57.

29.

Cohen. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales Educ Psychol Meas. SAGE Publications Inc. 1960;20:37–46.

30.

Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC, Statistical Methods for Rates and proportions. . New YorkWily. 2003;3rd ed.

31.

Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 2: clinical applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30(7):1285–92. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1654.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Angelopoulos C, Scarfe WC, Farman AG. A comparison of maxillofacial CBCT and medical CT. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2012;20(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cxom.2011.12.008.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Impact of voxel size variation on CBCT-based diagnostic outcome in dentistry: a systematic review. J Digit Imaging. 2013;26(4):813–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9562-7.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 1: physical principles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30(6):1088–95. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1653.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Icen M, Orhan K, Seker C, Geduk G, Cakmak Ozlu F, Cengiz MI. Comparison of CBCT with different voxel sizes and intraoral scanner for detection of periodontal defects: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20190197.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Bagis N, Eren H, Kolsuz ME, Kurt MH, Avsever H, Orhan K. Comparison of the burr and chemically induced periodontal defects using different field-of-view sizes and voxel resolutions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018;125(3):260–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2017.11.010.CrossRefPubMed

37.

de Faria VK, Evangelista KM, Rodrigues CD, Estrela C, de Sousa TO, Silva MA. Detection of periodontal bone loss using cone beam CT and intraoral radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41(1):64–9. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/13676777.CrossRef

38.

de Faria VKEK, Rodrigues CD, Estrela C, de Sousa TO, Silva MA. Detection of periodontal bone loss using cone beam CT and intraoral radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41(1):64–9.CrossRef

39.

Kamburoglu K, Eres G, Akgun C, Yeta EN, Gulen O, Karacaoglu F. Effect of voxel size on accuracy of cone beam computed tomography-aided assessment of periodontal furcation involvement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2015;120(5):644–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2015.07.030.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Effect of voxel size on detection of fenestration, dehiscence and furcation defects using cone-beam computed tomography
Authors: Masoumeh Eftekhar
Hanieh Kaviani
Nina Rouzmeh
Aitin Torabinia
Alireza Akbarzadeh Baghban
Publication date: 01-10-2021
Publisher: Springer Singapore
Keywords: Computed Tomography
Computed Tomography
Published in: Oral Radiology / Issue 4/2021
Print ISSN: 0911-6028
Electronic ISSN: 1613-9674
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-020-00508-0

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Effect of voxel size on detection of fenestration, dehiscence and furcation defects using cone-beam computed tomography

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2021

Correction to: The relationship between COVID-19 and the dental damage stage determined by radiological examination

Shear wave elastography of temporomandibular joint disc and masseter muscle stiffness in healthy children and adolescents: a preliminary study

Computed tomography texture analysis of mandibular condylar bone marrow in diabetes mellitus patients

Superselective intra-arterial chemoradiotherapy using altered blood flow compared to conventional systemic chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma: a single-center retrospective study

Ultrasound dimensional changes of the anterior belly of the digastric muscle induced by orthognathic surgery and botulinum toxin A injection in Class II malocclusion

Evaluation of maxillary sinus volume in different craniofacial patterns: a CBCT study