Advertisement

Introduction to Micro-CT Imaging

  • Kaan Orhan
Chapter

Abstract

Experimental and preclinical bone and dental research has employed micro-computed tomography (Micro-CT) increasingly over the last two decades which is currently being utilized in various fields such as biomedical research, materials science, pharmaceutical medicine development and manufacturing, composites, dental research, electronic components, geology, zoology, botany, construction materials, and paper production. From a technical point of view, Micro-CT indeed is a cone beam computed tomography technique which utilizes geometrically cone-shaped beams for reconstruction and back-projection processes. Having a voxel size volumetrically almost one million times smaller than that of computed tomography (CT), Micro-CT’s voxel size ranges approximately between 1 and 50 μm. Taking advantage of all these benefits provided by micro-computed tomography, various approaches in medicine and engineering are being conducted on Micro-CT. Throughout this book, all aspects of Micro-CT including technical details and applications in medicine and engineering are being discussed.

Keywords

Micro-CT Medicine Engineering 3D reconstruction 3D analyses 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Some of the researches in this book were supported by Ankara University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit (Grant number: 17A0234001).

References

  1. 1.
    Feldkamp LA, Goldstein SA, Parfitt AM, Jesion G, Kleerekoper M. The direct examination of three- dimensional bone architecture in vitro by computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res. 1989;4(1):3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kuhn J, Goldstein S, Feldkamp L, Goulet R, Jesion G. Evaluation of a microcomputed tomography system to study trabecular bone structure. J Orthop Res. 1990;8(6):833–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guldberg RE, Lin AS, Coleman R, Robertson G, Duvall C. Microcomputed tomography imaging of skeletal development and growth. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2004;72(3):250–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rhodes JS, Ford TR, Lynch JA, Liepins PJ, Curtis RV. Micro-computed tomography: a new tool for experimental endodontology. Int Endod J. 1999;32(3):165–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paterson GLJ, Sykes D, Faulwetter S, Merk R, Ahmed F, Hawkins LE, Dinley D, Ball AD, Arvanitidis C. The pros and cons of using micro-computed tomography in gross and microanatomical assessments of polychaetous annelids. Mem Mus Victoria. 2014;71:237–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faillace ME, Rudolph RA, Brunke O. Micro-CT and Nano-CT as a valuable complimentary tool for life sciences. Microsc Microanal. 2013;19:636–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parfitt AM. Bone histomorphometry: proposed system forstandardization of nomenclature, symbols, and units. Calcif Tissue Int. 1988;42:284–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aaron JE, Shore PA. Bone Histomorphometry. In: Handbook of histology methods for bone and cartilage. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2003. p. 331–51.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bouxsein ML, Boyd SK, Christiansen BA, Guldberg RE, Jepsen KJ, Müller R. Guidelines for assessment of bone microstructure in rodents using micro–computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25(7):1468–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chappard D, Retailleau-Gaborit N, Legrand E, Baslé MF, Audran M. Comparison insight bone measurements by histomorphometry and μCT. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20(7):1177–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bonnet N, Laroche N, Vico L, Dolleans E, Courteix D, Benhamou CL. Assessment of trabecular bone microarchitecture by two different X-ray microcomputed tomographs: a comparative study of the rat distal tibia using Skyscan and Scanco devices. Med Phys. 2009;36(4):1286–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Müller R, Van Campenhout H, Van Damme B, Van Der Perre G, Dequeker J, Hildebrand T, Rüegsegger P. Morphometric analysis of human bone biopsies: a quantitative structural comparison of histological sections and micro-computed tomography. Bone. 1998;23(1):59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bayraktar E, Antolovich SD, Bathias C. New developments in non-destructive controls of the composite materials and applications in manufacturing engineering. J Mater Process Technol. 2008;206(1–3):30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salvo L, Michel S, Marmottant A Limodin N, Bernard D. 3D imaging in material science: application of X-ray tomography. C R Physique. 2010;10:641–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Landis EN, Keane DT. X-ray microtomography. Mater Charact. 2010;61(12):1305–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guldberg RE, Ballock RT, Boyan BD, Duvall CL, Lin AS, Nagaraja S, Oest M, Phillips J, Porter BD, Robertson G, Taylor WR. Analyzing bone, blood vessels, and biomaterials with microcomputed tomo-graphy. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2003;22(5):77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kaan Orhan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial RadiologyAnkara UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Medicine, OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and PathologyUniversity of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals LeuvenUniversity of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations