Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Staff Members

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

News

In vitro Evaluation of the Relationship between Gray Scales in Digital Intraoral Radiographs and Hounsfield Units in CT Scans

Document Type : Original Research

Authors

1 Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (M.Sc.), Department of Radiology, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

2 Specialist in Periodontology (M.Sc.), Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran

3 Specialist in Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (M.Sc.), Private Clinic of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Khoramabad, Iran

4 Assistant Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (M.Sc), Department of Radiology, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, International Branch, Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

Background: Jaw bone quality plays an essential role in treatment planning and prognosis of dental implants. Regarding several available methods for bone density measurements, they are not routinely used before implant surgery due to hard accessibility.
Objective: An in vitro investigation of correlation between average gray scale in direct digital radiographs and Hounsfield units in CT-Scan provides a feasible method for evaluating alveolar bone quality prior to implant surgery.
Methods: 26 sheep’s mandibles in which a square shape ROI marked by gutta percha, were prepared. Three direct digital radiographs (CCD sensor) from every specimen were taken using 80, 100 and 200 milli-seconds. Then, the average gray levels for ROIs were calculated using a costume-made software. Next, the specimens were scanned using a 16-slice spiral CT and the Hounsfield Unit of each ROI was calculated. Pearson analysis measured the correlation between Hounsfield units and average gray levels.
Results: There was a positive correlation between Hounsfield unit and average gray level in the radiographs and the correlation was better in higher exposure times.
Conclusion: It is possible to estimate Hounsfield unit and bone density in the jaw bones using average gray scale in a digital radiograph. This approach is easy, simple and available and also results in lower patient exposure comparing other bone densitometric analysis methods.

Keywords

References
  1. Compston J. Bone quality: what is it and how is it measured? Arquivos Brasileiros de Endocrinologia & Metabologia. 2006;50:579-85. doi.org/10.1590/S0004-27302006000400003.
  2. Fyhrie DP. Summary--Measuring “bone quality”. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2005;5:318-20. PubMed PMID: 16340121.
  3. Licata A. Bone density vs bone quality: what’s a clinician to do? Cleve Clin J Med. 2009;76:331-6. doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.76a.08041. PubMed PMID: 19487553.
  4. Sievanen H, Kannus P, Jarvinen TL. Bone quality: an empty term. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e27. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040027. PubMed PMID: 17341126.
  5. Minkin C, Marinho VC. Role of the osteoclast at the bone-implant interface. Adv Dent Res. 1999;13:49-56. doi.org/10.1177/08959374990130011401. PubMed PMID: 11276746.
  6. Sakka S, Coulthard P. Bone quality: a reality for the process of osseointegration. Implant Dent. 2009;18(6):480-5. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181bb840d. Review. PubMed PMID: 20009601.
  7. Santiago RC, de Paula FO, Fraga MR, Picorelli Assis NM, Vitral RW. Correlation between miniscrew stability and bone mineral density in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136:243-50. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.031. PubMed PMID: 19651355.
  8. Misch CE. Bone density: a key determinant for treatment planning. Contemporary implant dentistry. 3rd ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2007. p. 130-146.
  9. Johansson P, Strid K. Assessment of bone quality from cutting resistance during implant surgery. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 1994;9:279-88.
  10. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006;72:75-80. PubMed PMID: 16480609.
  11. Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R. Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:873-9. doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02076.x. PubMed PMID: 21244502.
  12. Naitoh M, Aimiya H, Hirukawa A, Ariji E. Morphometric analysis of mandibular trabecular bone using cone beam computed tomography: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:1093-8. PubMed PMID: 21197484.
  13. Merheb J, Van Assche N, Coucke W, Jacobs R, Naert I, Quirynen M. Relationship between cortical bone thickness or computerized tomography-derived bone density values and implant stability. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:612-7. doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01880.x. PubMed PMID: 20666788.
  14. Gomes PP, Guimaraes Filho R, Mazzonetto R. Evaluation of the bending strength of rigid internal fixation with absorbable and metallic screws in mandibular ramus sagittal split osteotomy: in vitro study. Pesqui Odontol Bras. 2003;17:267-72. doi.org/10.1590/S1517-74912003000300012. PubMed PMID: 14762506.
  15. Trisi P, Todisco M, Consolo U, Travaglini D. High versus low implant insertion torque: a histologic, histomorphometric, and biomechanical study in the sheep mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26:837-49. PubMed PMID: 21841994.
  16. Kayipmaz S, Sezgin OS, Saricaoglu ST, Can G. An in vitro comparison of diagnostic abilities of conventional radiography, storage phosphor, and cone beam computed tomography to determine occlusal and approximal caries. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80:478-82. doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.09.011. PubMed PMID: 20934291.
  17. Ulusu T, Bodur H, Odabas ME. In vitro comparison of digital and conventional bitewing radiographs for the detection of approximal caries in primary teeth exposed and viewed by a new wireless handheld unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39:91-4. doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/15182314. PubMed PMID: 20100920. PubMed PMCID: 3520193.
  18. Kamburoglu K, Senel B, Yuksel SP, Ozen T. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of in vivo and in vitro photostimulable phosphor digital images in the detection of occlusal caries lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39:17-22. doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/91657756. PubMed PMID: 20089739. PubMed PMCID: 3520404.
  19. Senel B, Kamburoglu K, Ucok O, Yuksel SP, Ozen T, Avsever H. Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities in detection of proximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39:501-11. doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/28628723. PubMed PMID: 21062944. PubMed PMCID: 3520212.
  20. Schropp L, Alyass NS, Wenzel A, Stavropoulos A. Validity of wax and acrylic as soft-tissue simulation materials used in in vitro radiographic studies. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41:686-90. doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/33467269. PubMed PMID: 22933536. PubMed PMCID: 3528195.
  21. Turkyilmaz I, McGlumphy EA. Influence of bone density on implant stability parameters and implant success: a retrospective clinical study. BMC Oral Health. 2008;8:32. doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-8-32. PubMed PMID: 19025637. PubMed PMCID: 2614413.
  22. Morea C, Dominguez GC, Coutinho A, Chilvarquer I. Quantitative analysis of bone density in direct digital radiographs evaluated by means of computerized analysis of digital images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39:356-61. doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/13093703. PubMed PMID: 20729185. PubMed PMCID: 3520242.
  23. Gu L, Yu LY, Zhou Y, Xie C. Application of the bone quality of pre-implanted mandible through optical density measurement. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2008;17:479-82. PubMed PMID: 18989587.
  24. Norton MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001;12:79-84. doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012001079.x. PubMed PMID: 11168274.
  25. Shapurian T, Damoulis PD, Reiser GM, Griffin TJ, Rand WM. Quantitative evaluation of bone density using the Hounsfield index. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21:290-7. PubMed PMID: 16634501.
  26. Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39:323-35. doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/19603304. PubMed PMID: 20729181. PubMed PMCID: 3520236.
  27. Nomura Y, Watanabe H, Honda E, Kurabayashi T. Reliability of voxel values from cone-beam computed tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral density. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:558-62. doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01896.x. PubMed PMID: 20443807.
  28. Miles DA, Danforth RA. A clinician’s guide to understanding cone beam volumetric imaging (CBVI). Peer-Reviwed Publication-Academy of Dental Therapeutics and Stomatology 2008. 2007.
  29. Nackaerts O, Jacobs R, Horner K, Zhao F, Lindh C, Karayianni K, et al. Bone density measurements in intra-oral radiographs. Clin Oral Investig. 2007;11:225-9. doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0107-2. PubMed PMID: 17668257.
  30. Sakakura CE, Giro G, Goncalves D, Pereira RM, Orrico SR, Marcantonio E, Jr. Radiographic assessment of bone density around integrated titanium implants after ovariectomy in rats. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17:134-8. doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01224.x. PubMed PMID: 16584408.
Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering
Volume 7, Issue 3 - Serial Number 3
25
September and October 2017
Pages 289-298
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics