We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Computerized Dentistry
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Comput Dent 20 (2017), No. 1     13. Mar. 2017
Int J Comput Dent 20 (2017), No. 1  (13.03.2017)

Page 21-34, PubMed:28294203, Language: English/German


Accuracy and reproducibility of four cone beam computed tomography devices using 3D implant-planning software
Stimmelmayr, Michael / Denk, Katharina / Erdelt, Kurt / Krennmair, Gerald / Mansour, Sonia / Beuer, Florian / Güth, Jan-Frederik
Objective: To measure the deviations of four different cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices in three dimensions by means of a three-dimensional (3D) implant-planning program.
Materials and methods: A master radiographic template with two vertical, two transverse, and two sagittal radiopaque markers was fabricated for a human dry skull. The lengths of the markers were measured with a high-precision caliper. The skull and the template were scanned in each of the four CBCT devices (1. Gendex GXCB-500; 2. Sirona Galileos Comfort; 3. Sirona Orthophos XG 3D; 4. Carestream CS 9300) 19 times (10 scans without moving the skull, and 9 scans with repeated repositioning of the skull in the device, according to the manufacturers' instructions). A 3D implant-planning program was used to measure the lengths of the six markers digitally. Actual and digital measurements were compared to determine device-specific errors. The repositioning of the skull examined the reproducibility of the CBCT devices. Linear measurements were analyzed statistically (P < 0.05).
Results: Mean deviations without moving the skull (vertical/sagittal/transverse) for device 1 were 0.023 mm/0.000 mm/0.025 mm (0.07%/0.19%/0.24%), for device 2 were 0.410 mm/0.115 mm/0.080 mm (-1.75%/0.32%/0.88%), for device 3 were -0.665 mm/-0.215 mm/-0.675 mm (-2.71%/-1.82%/-4.42%), and for device 4 were -0.045 mm/-0.135 mm/-0.410 mm (-0.45%/-1.54%/-2.57%). The overall mean deviation for device 1 was 0.028 mm (0.16%), for device 2 was 0.072 mm (-0.95%), for device 3 was 0.518 mm (-2.97%), and for device 4 was -0.197 mm (-1.53%). The mean deviation after repositioning for device 1 was 0.004 mm (-0.65%), for device 2 was -0.250 mm (0.95%), for device 3 was 0.496 mm (-2.66%), and for device 4 was -0.265 mm (-1.92%). Thus, apart from device 3, the deviations increased.
Conclusion: Deviations from the actual measurements were detected with each device. Therefore, respecting safety distances when placing implants is crucial.

Keywords: implant planning, 3D planning, CBCT, 3D imaging, radiographic reproducibility, radiographic accuracy