Validation of cone-beam computed tomography as a predictor of osteoporosis using the Klemetti classification

Abstract This study aimed at evaluating the validity of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for assessing mandibular bone quality using the Klemetti classification. The morphology of the endosteal mandibular cortex of 30 (60 hemi-mandibles) postmenopausal women between the ages of 45 and 80 years was evaluated based on the Klemetti classification in panoramic radiographs used as reference images. Afterwards, panoramic reconstruction and cross-sectional slices of CBCT examinations of these patients were analyzed and categorized according to the same classification. All the images were assessed by two oral radiologists. The McNemar-Bowker test compared the agreement between the CBCT images and the reference images. No differences were found between the diagnostic results based on panoramic radiography and panoramic reconstruction. However, the mean scores for the cross-sectional evaluation were higher, and the results, statistically different from the others. Based on the disagreement found between the panoramic radiographs and the CBCT cross-sectional slices, the Klemetti classification is not an adequate means of assessing bone quality with CBCT. On the other hand, the higher values found for the cross-sectional slices could be associated with better visibility on the CBCT images.

Vertical bone measurements from cone beam computed tomography images using different software packages

This article aimed at comparing the accuracy of linear measurement tools of different commercial software packages. Eight fully edentulous dry mandibles were selected for this study. Incisor, canine, premolar, first molar and second molar regions were selected. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were obtained with i-CAT Next Generation. Linear bone measurements were performed by one observer on the cross-sectional images using three different software packages: XoranCat®, OnDemand3D® and KDIS3D®, all able to assess DICOM images. In addition, 25% of the sample was reevaluated for the purpose of reproducibility. The mandibles were sectioned to obtain the gold standard for each region. Intraclass coefficients (ICC) were calculated to examine the agreement between the two periods of evaluation; the one-way analysis of variance performed with the post-hoc Dunnett test was used to compare each of the software-derived measurements with the gold standard. The ICC values were excellent for all software packages. The least difference between the software-derived measurements and the gold standard was obtained with the OnDemand3D and KDIS3D (-0.11 and -0.14 mm, respectively), and the greatest, with the XoranCAT (+0.25 mm). However, there was no statistical significant difference between the measurements obtained with the different software packages and the gold standard (p> 0.05). In conclusion, linear bone measurements were not influenced by the software package used to reconstruct the image from CBCT DICOM data.

Oblique or orthoradial CBCT slices for preoperative implant planning: which one is more accurate?

AIM: To assess which slice inclination would be more accurate in measuring sites for implant placement: the oblique or the orthoradial slice. METHODS: Five regions of eight edentulous mandibles were selected (incisor, canine, premolar, first molar and second molar). The mandibles were scanned with a Next Generation i-CAT CBCT unit. Two previously calibrated oral radiologists performed vertical measurements in all the selected regions using both the oblique and orthoradial slices. The mandibles were sectioned in all the evaluated regions in order to obtain the gold standard. The Wilcoxon signed rank test compared the measurements obtained in the oblique and orthoradial slices with the gold standard. RESULTS: The bone height measurements for the first and second molar regions using the orthoradial slices were statistically different from the gold standard. CONCLUSIONS: Using the orthoradial slices to obtain cross-sectional images may offer insufficient accuracy for implant placement in the posterior region...