Assessment of CBCT gray value in different regions-of-interest and fields-of-view compared to Hounsfield unit.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Dento maxillo facial radiology Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-24 DOI:10.1259/dmfr.20230187
Atiye Yadegari, Yaser Safi, Soheil Shahbazi, Sahar Yaghoutiazar, Mitra Ghazizadeh Ahsaie
{"title":"Assessment of CBCT gray value in different regions-of-interest and fields-of-view compared to Hounsfield unit.","authors":"Atiye Yadegari, Yaser Safi, Soheil Shahbazi, Sahar Yaghoutiazar, Mitra Ghazizadeh Ahsaie","doi":"10.1259/dmfr.20230187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Different factors can affect the discrepancy between the gray value (GV) measurements obtained from CBCT and the Hounsfield unit (HU) derived from multidetector CT (MDCT), which is considered the gold-standard density scale. This study aimed to explore the impact of region of interest (ROI) location and field of view (FOV) size on the difference between these two scales as a potential source of error.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three phantoms, each consisting of a water-filled plastic bin containing a dry dentate human skull, were prepared. CBCT scans were conducted using the NewTom VGi evo system, while MDCT scans were performed using Philips system. Three different FOV sizes (8 × 8 cm, 8 × 12 cm, and 12 × 15 cm) were used, and the GVs obtained from eight distinct ROIs were compared with the HUs from the MDCT scans. The ROIs included dental and bony regions within the anterior and posterior areas of both jaws. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v. 26.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The GVs derived from CBCT images were significantly influenced by both ROI location and FOV size (<i>p</i> < 0.05 for both factors). Following the comparison between GVs and HUs, the anterior mandibular bone ROI represented the minimum error, while the posterior mandibular teeth exhibited the maximum error. Moreover, the 8 × 8 cm and 12 × 15 cm FOVs resulted in the lowest and highest degrees of GV error, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ROI location and the FOV size can significantly affect the GVs obtained from CBCT images. It is not recommended to use the GV scale within the posterior mandibular teeth region due to the potential for error. Additionally, selecting smaller FOV sizes, such as 8 × 8 cm, can provide GVs closer to the gold-standard numbers.</p>","PeriodicalId":11261,"journal":{"name":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","volume":" ","pages":"20230187"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10968765/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20230187","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Different factors can affect the discrepancy between the gray value (GV) measurements obtained from CBCT and the Hounsfield unit (HU) derived from multidetector CT (MDCT), which is considered the gold-standard density scale. This study aimed to explore the impact of region of interest (ROI) location and field of view (FOV) size on the difference between these two scales as a potential source of error.

Methods: Three phantoms, each consisting of a water-filled plastic bin containing a dry dentate human skull, were prepared. CBCT scans were conducted using the NewTom VGi evo system, while MDCT scans were performed using Philips system. Three different FOV sizes (8 × 8 cm, 8 × 12 cm, and 12 × 15 cm) were used, and the GVs obtained from eight distinct ROIs were compared with the HUs from the MDCT scans. The ROIs included dental and bony regions within the anterior and posterior areas of both jaws. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v. 26.

Results: The GVs derived from CBCT images were significantly influenced by both ROI location and FOV size (p < 0.05 for both factors). Following the comparison between GVs and HUs, the anterior mandibular bone ROI represented the minimum error, while the posterior mandibular teeth exhibited the maximum error. Moreover, the 8 × 8 cm and 12 × 15 cm FOVs resulted in the lowest and highest degrees of GV error, respectively.

Conclusions: The ROI location and the FOV size can significantly affect the GVs obtained from CBCT images. It is not recommended to use the GV scale within the posterior mandibular teeth region due to the potential for error. Additionally, selecting smaller FOV sizes, such as 8 × 8 cm, can provide GVs closer to the gold-standard numbers.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与Hounsfield单位相比,评估不同感兴趣区域和视野中的CBCT灰度值。
目的:不同的因素会影响从CBCT获得的灰度值(GV)测量值与从多探测器CT(MDCT)获得的Hounsfield单位(HU)之间的差异,后者被认为是金标准密度标度。本研究旨在探讨感兴趣区域(ROI)位置和视野(FOV)大小对这两个量表之间差异的影响,这是潜在的误差来源。方法:制作三个模型,每个模型由一个装满水的塑料箱组成,里面装着一个干燥的有牙齿的人类头骨。CBCT扫描使用NewTom VGi-evo系统进行,而MDCT扫描使用Philips系统进行。三种不同FOV尺寸(8×8 厘米,8×12 厘米和12×15 cm),并将从八个不同ROI获得的GV与来自MDCT扫描的HU进行比较。ROI包括两颚前部和后部的牙齿和骨区域。使用SPSS v.26进行统计分析。结果:CBCT图像得出的GV受ROI位置和FOV大小的显著影响(两个因素均p<0.05)。比较GVs和HUs后,下颌前骨ROI的误差最小,而下颌后牙的误差最大。此外,8×8 厘米和12×15 cm FOV分别导致最低和最高程度的GV误差。结论:ROI的位置和FOV的大小可以显著影响CBCT图像中获得的GVs。不建议在下颌后牙区域使用GV量表,因为可能会出现错误。此外,选择较小的FOV尺寸,如8×8 cm可以提供更接近金标准数字的GV。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
65
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (DMFR) is the journal of the International Association of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (IADMFR) and covers the closely related fields of oral radiology and head and neck imaging. Established in 1972, DMFR is a key resource keeping dentists, radiologists and clinicians and scientists with an interest in Head and Neck imaging abreast of important research and developments in oral and maxillofacial radiology. The DMFR editorial board features a panel of international experts including Editor-in-Chief Professor Ralf Schulze. Our editorial board provide their expertise and guidance in shaping the content and direction of the journal. Quick Facts: - 2015 Impact Factor - 1.919 - Receipt to first decision - average of 3 weeks - Acceptance to online publication - average of 3 weeks - Open access option - ISSN: 0250-832X - eISSN: 1476-542X
期刊最新文献
Carotid calcifications in panoramic radiographs can predict vascular risk. Preparing for downstream tasks in AI for dental radiology: a baseline performance comparison of deep learning models. Temporomandibular joint assessment in MRI images using artificial intelligence tools: Where are we now? A systematic review. Gray values and noise behavior of cone-beam computed tomography machines-an in vitro study. A novel method for measuring the direction and angle of Central ray and predicting rotation center via panorama phantom.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1