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.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and reliability of linear measurements of edentulous ridges recorded from 16-row multidetector CT (MDCT) images and cone beam CT (CBCT) images acquired using a flat panel detector (FPD) with a large field of view (FOV), both independently and in comparison with each other.


METHODS
Edentulous areas of human dry skulls were marked with gutta-percha markers to standardize the plane of the transverse cross-sections and path of measurements. The skulls were imaged using a 16-row MDCT scanner and a CBCT device with a large FOV and a FPD. Ridge dimensions were recorded from reformatted sections by two observers and compared with measurements recorded directly from the bone. The measurement errors and intra and interexaminer reliability were calculated for each modality and compared with each other.


RESULTS
The overall mean of the absolute errors was 0.75 mm for MDCT and 0.49 mm for CBCT. The mean of the CBCT absolute errors was smaller than that of the MDCT absolute errors for the overall data, as well as for the site-specific data. The intraexaminer reliability score was 0.994 for MDCT and 0.995 for CBCT. The interexaminer reliability was 0.985 for MDCT and 0.958 for CBCT.


CONCLUSIONS
Both MDCT and CBCT were associated with a clinically and statistically significant measurement error. CBCT measurements were significantly more accurate than those of MDCT. The measurements recorded from both modalities had a high inter and intraexaminer reliability. Accuracy of measurements was found to be more operator dependent with CBCT than with MDCT.
Department of Oral Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, P. O. Box 56810, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11564, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. asma.alekrish@gmail.com
A A
AA
Al-Ekrish
M
M
Ekram
D000704:Analysis of Variance; D002102:Cadaver; D054893:Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; D003758:Dental Implantation, Endosseous; D006801:Humans; D007575:Jaw, Edentulous / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D015588:Observer Variation; D010347:Patient Care Planning; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods*; D014963:X-Ray Intensifying Screens
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999 Jun;57(6):690-4
10368094
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007 Jul;137(1):115-8
17599577
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004 Nov;33(6):361-9
15665229
Radiologe. 2003 May;43(5):379-87
12764587
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1999 Jul;28(4):245-8
10455389
Med Phys. 2000 Jun;27(6):1311-23
10902561
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004 Jan;33(1):51-9
15140823
Med Phys. 2001 Feb;28(2):220-31
11243347
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008 Jan;37(1):10-7
18195249
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007 Dec;104(6):829-36
17448704
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005 Jan;34(1):9-15
15709099
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004 Mar-Apr;19(2):239-46
15101596
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2007 Dec;27(6):589-95
18092453
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Apr;105(4):512-8
17900939
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004 Mar-Apr;19(2):228-31
15101594
Eur Radiol. 1998;8(9):1558-64
9866761
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003 Apr;23(2):177-83
12710821