Top

International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery

Published in:

Open Access 01-11-2018 | Original Article

Accuracy of computer-aided design models of the jaws produced using ultra-low MDCT doses and ASIR and MBIR

Authors: Asma’a A. Al-Ekrish, Sara A. Alfadda, Wadea Ameen, Romed Hörmann, Wolfgang Puelacher, Gerlig Widmann

Published in: International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery | Issue 11/2018

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the surface of computer-aided design (CAD) models of the maxilla produced using ultra-low MDCT doses combined with filtered backprojection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) reconstruction techniques with that produced from a standard dose/FBP protocol.

Methods

A cadaveric completely edentulous maxilla was imaged using a standard dose protocol (CTDIvol: 29.4 mGy) and FBP, in addition to 5 low dose test protocols (LD1-5) (CTDIvol: 4.19, 2.64, 0.99, 0.53, and 0.29 mGy) reconstructed with FBP, ASIR 50, ASIR 100, and MBIR. A CAD model from each test protocol was superimposed onto the reference model using the ‘Best Fit Alignment’ function. Differences between the test and reference models were analyzed as maximum and mean deviations, and root-mean-square of the deviations, and color-coded models were obtained which demonstrated the location, magnitude and direction of the deviations.

Results

Based upon the magnitude, size, and distribution of areas of deviations, CAD models from the following protocols were comparable to the reference model: FBP/LD1; ASIR 50/LD1 and LD2; ASIR 100/LD1, LD2, and LD3; MBIR/LD1. The following protocols demonstrated deviations mostly between 1–2 mm or under 1 mm but over large areas, and so their effect on surgical guide accuracy is questionable: FBP/LD2; MBIR/LD2, LD3, LD4, and LD5. The following protocols demonstrated large deviations over large areas and therefore were not comparable to the reference model: FBP/LD3, LD4, and LD5; ASIR 50/LD3, LD4, and LD5; ASIR 100/LD4, and LD5.

Conclusions

When MDCT is used for CAD models of the jaws, dose reductions of 86% may be possible with FBP, 91% with ASIR 50, and 97% with ASIR 100. Analysis of the stability and accuracy of CAD/CAM surgical guides as directly related to the jaws is needed to confirm the results.

Available only for authorised users

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation U Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. In: Official records of the general assembly, 63rd session, Supplement No. 46., New York, 2010–2008. United Nations

Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC (2012) Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 113(6):817–826CrossRefPubMed

Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard JA, Saini S (2004) Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 230(3):619–628. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2303021726 CrossRefPubMed

Loubele M, Jacobs R, Maes F, Schutyser F, Debaveye D, Bogaerts R, Coudyzer W, Vandermeulen D, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Marchal G (2005) Radiation dose vs. image quality for low-dose CT protocols of the head for maxillofacial surgery and oral implant planning. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 117(1–3):211–216CrossRefPubMed

McCollough CH, Primak AN, Braun N, Kofler J, Yu L, Christner J (2009) Strategies for reducing radiation dose in CT. Radiol Clin North Am 47(1):27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2008.10.006 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Widmann G, Al-Shawaf R, Schullian P, Al-Sadhan R, Hormann R, Al-Ekrish AA (2017) Effect of ultra-low doses, ASIR and MBIR on density and noise levels of MDCT images of dental implant sites. Eur Radiol 27(5):2225–2234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4588-8 CrossRefPubMed

Widmann G, Bischel A, Stratis A, Bosmans H, Jacobs R, Gassner EM, Puelacher W, Pauwels R (2017) Spatial and contrast resolution of ultralow dose dentomaxillofacial CT imaging using iterative reconstruction technology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 46(4):20160452. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160452 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lin H-H, Chang H-W, Lo L-J (2015) Development of customized positioning guides using computer-aided design and manufacturing technology for orthognathic surgery. IJCARS 10(12):2021–2033

McHanwell S, Brenner E, Chirculescu A, Drukker J, van Mameren H, Mazzotti G, Pais D, Paulsen F, Plaisant O, Caillaud M, Laforêt E, Riederer B, Sanudo J, Bueno-Lopez J, Donate F, Sprumont P, Teofilovski-Parapid G, Moxham B (2008) The legal and ethical framework governing Body Donation in Europe—a review of current practice and recommendations for good practice. Eur J Anat 12(1):1–24

10.

Riederer B, Bolt S, Brenner E, Bueno-Lopez J, Cirulescu A, Davies D, De Caro R, Gerrits P, McHanwell S, Pais D, Paulsen F, Plaisant O, Sendemir E, Stabile I, Moxham B (2012) The legal and ethical framework governing Body Donation in Europe—1st update on current practice. Eur J Anat 16(1):1–21

11.

Nizam A, Gopal R, Naing L, Hakim A, Samsudin A (2006) Dimensional accuracy of the skull models produced by rapid prototyping technology using stereolithography apparatus. Arch Orofac Sci 1:60–66

12.

Vercruyssen M, Jacobs R, Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D (2008) The use of CT scan based planning for oral rehabilitation by means of implants and its transfer to the surgical field: a critical review on accuracy. J Oral Rehabil 35(6):454–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01816.x CrossRefPubMed

13.

Widmann G, Bischel A, Stratis A, Kakar A, Bosmans H, Jacobs R, Gassner EM, Puelacher W, Pauwels R (2016) Ultralow dose dentomaxillofacial CT imaging and iterative reconstruction techniques: variability of Hounsfield units and contrast-to-noise ratio. Br J Radiol 89(1060):20151055. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20151055 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Widmann G, Dalla Torre D, Hoermann R, Schullian P, Gassner EM, Bale R, Puelacher W (2015) Ultralow-dose computed tomography imaging for surgery of midfacial and orbital fractures using ASIR and MBIR. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44(4):441–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.01.011 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Ludlow J, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson D, Scheske M (2015) Effective dose of dental CBCT-a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 44(1):20140197CrossRefPubMed

16.

Kyriakou Y, Kolditz D, Langner O, Krause J, Kalender W (2011) Digital volume tomography (DVT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT): an objective examination of dose and image quality. Rofo 183(2):144–153. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1245709 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Primo B, Presotto A, de Oliveira H, Gassen H, Miguens S, Silva A, Hernandez P (2012) Accuracy assessment of prototypes produced using multi-slice and cone-beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:1291–1295CrossRefPubMed

18.

Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y, Denis K, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Jacobs R (2010) A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part II: On 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol 75(2):270–274CrossRefPubMed

19.

Al-Ekrish A, Ekram M (2011) 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 40(2):67–75CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD (2010) Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 39(6):323–335. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/19603304 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Blendl C, Fiebich M, Voigt J, Selbach M, Uphoff C (2012) [Investigation on the 3 D geometric accuracy and on the image quality (MTF, SNR and NPS) of volume tomography units (CT, CBCT and DVT)]. RoFo. Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin 184(1):24–31CrossRefPubMed

22.

Loubele M, Van Assche N, Carpentier K, Maes F, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D, Suetens P (2008) Comparative localized linear accuracy of small-field cone-beam CT and multislice CT for alveolar bone measurements. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 105(4):512–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.05.004 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Hoxworth JM, Lal D, Fletcher GP, Patel AC, He M, Paden RG, Hara AK (2014) Radiation dose reduction in paranasal sinus CT using model-based iterative reconstruction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 35(4):644–649. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3749 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Accuracy of computer-aided design models of the jaws produced using ultra-low MDCT doses and ASIR and MBIR
Authors: Asma’a A. Al-Ekrish
Sara A. Alfadda
Wadea Ameen
Romed Hörmann
Wolfgang Puelacher
Gerlig Widmann
Publication date: 01-11-2018
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery / Issue 11/2018
Print ISSN: 1861-6410
Electronic ISSN: 1861-6429
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1809-4

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Accuracy of computer-aided design models of the jaws produced using ultra-low MDCT doses and ASIR and MBIR

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2018

Real-time microrobot posture recognition via biplane X-ray imaging system for external electromagnetic actuation

Autonomous neuro-registration for robot-based neurosurgery

Development and internal validation of an aneurysm rupture probability model based on patient characteristics and aneurysm location, morphology, and hemodynamics

Deep dense multi-path neural network for prostate segmentation in magnetic resonance imaging

FCN-based approach for the automatic segmentation of bone surfaces in ultrasound images

Development of a shoulder-mounted robot for MRI-guided needle placement: phantom study