Comparison of the Hounsfield Unit Values Obtained From Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multidetector Computed Tomography (MDCT) Images for Different Bone Densities

Authors

  • Atefeh Khavid Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
  • Mojgan Sametzadeh Radiology Department, Faculty of Medical Science, Jundishapour University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
  • Mostafa Godiny Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
  • Mohammad Mehdi Moarrefpour Students Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22317/jcms.v7i2.943

Keywords:

Hounsfield Unit, cone beam computed tomography, multidetector computed tomography.

Abstract

Background and objective: In recent years, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has become a key diagnostic tool in dentistry. CBCT can provide 3D images of the maxillofacial area to help dental practitioners in diagnosis and treatment, especially implant placement and treatment of pathogenic lesions. This study aimed to compare the Hounsfield Unit (HU) values obtained from CBCT images for bones of different densities with the corresponding HU values from MDCT images.

Materials and methods: cube-shaped bone blocks of identical size were cut from the middle section of the cow ribs and femur area such that they had a layer of cortical bone in their buccal, lingual, and top surfaces and trabecular bone in the middle. MDCT scans were performed using a Somatom Sensation Ct Scanner. After determining HU from the results of these scans, nine suitable specimens from different ranges of HU were chosen for comparison. HU of the CBCT images was computed by the dedicated software of the CBCT machine. Finally, HU values obtained from MDCT and CBCT were compared. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 25 at the 0.05 significance level.

Results: The results showed a statistically significant difference between the mean HU from MDCT images and the mean HU from CBCT images (P<0.05). For similar specimens, CBCT produced higher mean HU values than MDCT. The Pearson correlation test detected a significant direct relationship between the HU values of specimens in MDCT and CBCT (P<0.05).

Conclusion: For the tools and software used in this study, there was no significant difference between the HU values obtained from MDCT and CBCT, but the mean HU obtained from CBCT was higher than that from MDCT.

References

References
1. Payahoo S, Jabbari G. The Ability of Cone Beam Computed Tomography to Predict Osteopenia and Osteoporosis via Radiographic Density Derived from Cervical Vertebrae. International Journal of Scientific Research in Dental and Medical Sciences. 2019;1(2):18-22. 10.30485/ijsrdms.2019.89758.
2. Resnik RR, Kircos LT, Misch CE. Diagnostic imaging and techniques. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. Missouri: Mosby. 2007:38-67.
3. Isoda K, Ayukawa Y, Tsukiyama Y, Sogo M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. Relationship between the bone density estimated by cone‐beam computed tomography and the primary stability of dental implants. Clinical oral implants research. 2012;23(7):832-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02203.x.
4. González‐García R, Monje F. The reliability of cone‐beam computed tomography to assess bone density at dental implant recipient sites: a histomorphometric analysis by micro‐CT. Clinical oral implants research. 2013;24(8):871-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02390.x.
5. Fuster-Torres MÁ, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Relationships between bone density values from cone beam computed tomography, maximum insertion torque, and resonance frequency analysis at implant placement: a pilot study. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2011;26(5): 1051-56.
6. Yabroudi F, Sindet-Pedersen S. Cone beam tomography (CBCT) as a diagnostic tool to assess the relationship between the inferior alveolar nerve and roots of mandibular wisdom teeth. Smile Dent J. 2012;7(3):12-6.
7. Feldkamp LA, Davis LC, Kress JW. Practical cone-beam algorithm. Josa a. 1984;1(6):612-9. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.1.000612.
8. Aponte Mendez M, Kayasöken G, Afjeh Soleymani B, Ravanbakhsh B. Evaluation Outcome of Cone Beam Computed Tomography for Treatment Plan Success and Failure: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Scientific Research in Dental and Medical Sciences. 2020;2(2):46-51. 10.30485/IJSRDMS.2020.233140.1061.
9. Kipp DP, Goldstein BH, Weiss WW. Dysesthesia after mandibular third molar surgery: a retrospective study and analysis of 1,377 surgical procedures. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1980;100(2):185-92. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1980.0074.
10. Libersa P, Savignat M, Tonnel A. Neurosensory disturbances of the inferior alveolar nerve: a retrospective study of complaints in a 10-year period. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2007;65(8):1486-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2007.03.023.
11. Monaco G, Montevecchi M, Bonetti GA, Gatto MR, Checchi L. Reliability of panoramic radiography in evaluating the topographic relationship between the mandibular canal and impacted third molars. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2004;135(3):312-8. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0179.
12. Deepak C, Saravanan B, Kumar SK. CBCT-A Paradigm Shift in the Management of Dental Impactions. Indian Journal of Multidisciplinary Dentistry. 2011;1(2).
13. Naitoh M, Hirukawa A, Katsumata A, Ariji E. Evaluation of voxel values in mandibular cancellous bone: relationship between cone‐beam computed tomography and multislice helical computed tomography. Clinical oral implants research. 2009;20(5):503-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01672.x.
14. Nomura Y, Watanabe H, Honda E, Kurabayashi T. Reliability of voxel values from cone‐beam computed tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral density. Clinical oral implants research. 2010;21(5):558-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01896.x.
15. Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R. Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clinical oral implants research. 2011;22(8):873-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02076.x.
16. Hua Y, Nackaerts O, Duyck J, Maes F, Jacobs R. Bone quality assessment based on cone beam computed tomography imaging. Clinical oral implants research. 2009;20(8):767-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01677.x.
17. Arisan V, Karabuda ZC, Avsever H, Özdemir T. Conventional multi‐slice computed tomography (CT) and cone‐beam CT (CBCT) for computer‐assisted implant placement. Part I: Relationship of radiographic gray density and implant stability. Clinical implant dentistry and related research. 2013;15(6):893-906. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00436.x.
18. Silva IM, Freitas DQ, Ambrosano GM, Bóscolo FN, Almeida SM. Bone density: comparative evaluation of Hounsfield units in multislice and cone-beam computed tomography. Brazilian oral research. 2012;26(6):550-6. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242012000600011.
19. Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2010;39(6):323-35.

Downloads

Published

2021-04-26

How to Cite

Khavid, A., Sametzadeh, M., Godiny, M., & Moarrefpour, M. M. (2021). Comparison of the Hounsfield Unit Values Obtained From Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multidetector Computed Tomography (MDCT) Images for Different Bone Densities. Journal of Contemporary Medical Sciences, 7(2), 92–95. https://doi.org/10.22317/jcms.v7i2.943

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 2 (2021): March-April 2021

Section

Articles