Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography with bitewing radiography for detection of periodontal bone loss and assessment of effects of different voxel resolutions: an in vitro study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Oral Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of the study was to compare intraoral radiographs and CBCT images for detection of horizontal periodontal bone loss, and to investigate the diagnostic effect of different voxel resolutions in CBCT imaging.

Methods

A total of 240 sites with horizontal bone loss were measured on the buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal surfaces of 60 posterior teeth in four maxillary and six mandibular bones obtained from cadavers (dry skulls). Direct measurements on the dry skulls were accepted as the gold standard values. Measurements on CBCT images at two different voxel resolutions (0.250 and 0.160 mm3) and intraoral bitewing radiographs were compared with one another and with the gold standard values.

Results

The measurements on the CBCT images at two voxel resolutions and bitewing radiographs did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) from the direct measurements on the dry skulls. No significant difference was found between the bitewing radiographs and CBCT images for measurements in the mesial and distal regions (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the measurements on the buccal and lingual surfaces at the two different voxel resolutions (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

CBCT scans are recommended for evaluation of buccal and lingual bone loss to avoid intraoral radiographs that exceed routine examination of interproximal alveolar bone loss. Furthermore, instead of basing the voxel size on the required CBCT scans, it is recommended to select the smallest possible field of view to reduce the dose of radiation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gedik R, Marakoglu I, Demirer S. Assessment of alveolar bone levels from bitewing, periapical and panoramic radiographs in periodontitis patients. West Indian Med J. 2008;57:410–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Corbet EF, Ho DKL, Lai SML. Radiographs in periodontal disease diagnosis and management. Aust Dent J. 2009;54(Suppl 1):S27–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mol A, Balasundaram A. In vitro cone beam computed tomography imaging of periodontal bone. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37:319–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Scarfe WC, Azevedo B, Pinheiro LR, Priaminiarti M, Sales MAO. The emerging role of maxillofacial radiology in the diagnosis and management of patients with complex periodontitis. Periodontol 2000. 2017;74:116–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim TS, Obst C, Zehaczek S, Geenen C. Detection of bone loss with different X-ray techniques in periodontal patients. J Periodontol. 2008;79:1141–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brägger U. Radiographic parameters: biological significance and clinical use. Periodontol 2000. 2005;39:73–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Miracle AC, Mukherji KS. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 2: clinical applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30:1285–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Naitoh M, Yamada S, Noguchi T, Ariji E, Nagao J, Mori K, et al. Three-dimensional display with quantitative analysis in alveolar bone resorption using cone-beam computerized tomography for dental use: a preliminary study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006;26:607–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Acar B, Kamburoğlu K. Use of cone beam computed tomography in periodontology. World J Radiol. 2014;6:139–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Misch KA, Yi ES, Sarment DP. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for periodontal defect measurements. J Periodontol. 2006;77:1261–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 7th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bragatto FP, Iwaki Filho L, Kasuya AV, Chicarelli M, Queiroz A, Takeshita WM, et al. Accuracy in the diagnosis of vertical root fractures, external root resorptions and root perforations using cone-beam computed tomography with different voxel sizes of acquisition. J Conserv Dent. 2016;19:573–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Nikneshan S, Valizadeh S, Javanmard A, Alibakhshi L. Effect of voxel size on detection of external root resorption defects using cone beam computed tomography. Iran J Radiol. 2016;13:e34985.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Neves FS, de Freitas DQ, Campos PSF, de Almeida SM, Haiter-Neto F. In vitro comparison of cone beam computed tomography with different voxel sizes for detection of simulated external root resorption. J Oral Sci. 2012;54:219–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dalili Z, Taramsari M, Mousavi Mehr SZ, Salamat F. Diagnostic value of two modes of cone-beam computed tomography in evaluation of simulated external root resorption: an in vitro study. Imaging Sci Dent. 2012;42:19–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Liedke GS, da Silveira HE, da Silveira HL, Dutra V, de Figueiredo JA. Influence of voxel size in the diagnostic ability of cone beam tomography to evaluate simulated external root resorption. J Endod. 2009;35:233–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Uzun I, Gunduz K, Celenk P, Avsever H, Orhan K, Canitezer G, et al. Comparing the effect of different voxel resolutions for assessment of vertical root fracture of permanent teeth. Iran J Radiol. 2015;12:e18290.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Junqueira RB, Verner FS, Campos CN, Devito KL, do Carmo AMR. Detection of vertical root fractures in the presence of intracanal metallic post: a comparison between periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod. 2013;39:1620–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sakhdari S, Talaeipour AR, Talaeipour M, Pazhutan M, Tehrani SH, Kharazifard MJ. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT with different voxel sizes and intraoral digital radiography for detection of periapical bone lesions: an ex-vivo study. J Dent (Tehran). 2016;13:77–84.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cook VC, Timock AM, Crowe JJ, Wang M, Covell DA Jr. Accuracy of alveolar bone measurements from cone beam computed tomography acquired using varying settings. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(Suppl 1):127–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kamburoğlu K, Ereş G, Akgün C, Yeta EN, Gülen O, Karacaoĝlu 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;120:644–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kolsuz ME, Bagis N, Orhan K, Avsever H, Demiralp K. Comparison of the influence of FOV sizes and different voxel resolutions for the assessment of periodontal defects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44:20150070.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Scaf G, Morihisa O, Loffredo LCM. Comparison between inverted and unprocessed digitized radiographic imaging in periodontal bone loss measurements. J Appl Oral Sci. 2007;15:492–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Newman M, Takei H, Klokkevold P, Carranza F. Carranza’s clinical periodontology. 12th ed. St Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mohan R, Singh A, Gundappa M. Three-dimensional imaging in periodontal diagnosis—utilization of cone beam computed tomography. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2011;15:11–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. du Bois AH, Kardachi B, Bartold PM. Is there a role for the use of volumetric cone beam computed tomography in periodontics? Aust Dent J. 2012;57(Suppl 1):103–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Almeida VC, Pinheiro LR, Salineiro FCS, Mendes MF, Neto JBC, Cavalcanti MGP, et al. Performance of cone beam computed tomography and conventional intraoral radiographs in detecting interproximal alveolar bone lesions: a study in pig mandibles. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17:100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Harorlı A. Oral and maxillofacial radiology [Ağız, Diş ve ÇeneRadyolojisi]. 1st ed. Istanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevi; 2014 (in Turkish).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Skundberg PA. Radiologic science for technologists: physics, biology and protection. Radiology. 1998;207:310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. de-Azevedo-Vaz SL, Vasconcelos Kde F, Neves FS, Melo SLS, Campos PSF, 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;115:121–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tanimoto H, Arai Y. The effect of voxel size on image reconstruction in cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Radiol. 2009;25:149–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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 Dentofac Orthop. 2011;139:e117–e127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kamburoğlu K, Murat S, Kolsuz E, Kurt H, Yüksel S, Paksoy C. Comparative assessment of subjective image quality of cross-sectional cone-beam computed tomography scans. J Oral Sci. 2011;53:501–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT) Part I. On subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75:265–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Moshfeghi M, Tavakoli MA, Hosseini ET, Hosseini AT, Hosseini IT. Analysis of linear measurement accuracy obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom VG). Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2012;9(Suppl 1):S57–S62.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Leung CC, Palomo L, Griffith R, Hans MG. Accuracy and reliability of cone-beam computed tomography for measuring alveolar bone height and detecting bony dehiscences and fenestrations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;137(4 Suppl):S109–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Necmettin Erbakan University, Ankara Street, 42050, Konya, Turkey

    Hayriye Cetmili, Melek Tassoker & Sevgi Sener

Authors
  1. Hayriye Cetmili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melek Tassoker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sevgi Sener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melek Tassoker.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Hayriye Cetmili, Melek Tassoker, and Sevgi Sener declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

The study protocol was approved by The Ethics Committee in Research of the Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Dentistry (no. 2017/08). All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cetmili, H., Tassoker, M. & Sener, S. Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography with bitewing radiography for detection of periodontal bone loss and assessment of effects of different voxel resolutions: an in vitro study. Oral Radiol 35, 177–183 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-018-0336-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-018-0336-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation