Correlation between pixel value of CBCT and Hounsfield Unit of MDCT on teeth and mandible cortical bone

A. Azhari; Rellyca Sola Gracea; I Made Agus Astika; Ali Thomas

doi:10.22146/majkedgiind.26808

Correlation between pixel value of CBCT and Hounsfield Unit of MDCT on teeth and mandible cortical bone

https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.26808

A. Azhari⁽¹⁾, Rellyca Sola Gracea^(2*), I Made Agus Astika⁽³⁾, Ali Thomas⁽⁴⁾

(1) Departemen Radiologi Dentomaksilofasial, Fakultas Kedokteran Gigi, Universitas Padjajaran, Bandung, Jawa Barat
(2) Departemen Radiologi Dentomaksilofasial, Fakultas Kedokteran Gigi, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(3) Departemen Radiologi Dentomaksilofasial, Fakultas Kedokteran Gigi, Universitas Padjajaran, Bandung, Jawa Barat
(4) Departemen Radiologi Dentomaksilofasial, Fakultas Kedokteran Gigi, Universitas Padjajaran, Bandung, Jawa Barat
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is an imaging modality widely used in dentistry over multi detector computed tomography (MDCT). It is in view of its high resolution with relatively lower dose. MDCT is able to show Hounsfield Unit (HU) which is proportional to x-ray attenuation degree by the tissue. The x-ray attenuation degree in CBCT is shown in grayscale value with pixel values unit. The aim of this study was to determine the correlation of pixel values in CBCT with HU in MDCT. We used secondary data from RSGM Universitas Padjajaran patient who had CBCT and MDCT. Measurement was done on the cortical areas (lingual, buccal, and posterior side) of the mandible and teeth 47 (email, dentin, and pulp) with 5 regions of interest (ROIs) on each area. DICOM software was used for the measurement on CBCT and MDCT data. The result indicated a strong correlation between pixel value in CBCT and HU in MDCT on the cortical bone and teeth area (R=0.846). Linear regression resulted in an equation to derive HU value from pixel value of cortical bone and teeth area, which is y = 1,9011x + 177,15. The conclusion is HU can be derived from CBCT by converting with regression equation.

Keywords

CBCT; hounsfield unit;MDCT; pixel value

Full Text:

PDF

References

1. De Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen GRJ. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: A systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 38(6): 609 – 625.

2. Kumar M, Shanavas M, Sidappa A, Kiran M. Cone beam computed tomography - know its secrets. J Int oral Heal. 2015; 7(2): 64 – 68.

3. Kamaruddin N, Rajion ZA, Yusof A, Aziz ME. Relationship between Hounsfield unit in CT scan and gray scale in CBCT [Internet]. New York: American Institute of Physics Publishing; 2016 [cited 2017 March 28]. Available from AIP : http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4968860

4. Scarfe WC, Levin MD, Gane D, Farman AG. Use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Int J Dent. 2009; 2009: 1 – 20.

5. Dawood A, Patel S, Brown J. Cone beam CT in dental practice. Bdj. 2009; 207(1): 23 – 28.

6. Govila S, Gundappa M. Cone beam computed tomography - an overview. J Conserv Dent. 2007; 10(2): 53 – 58.

7. Shweel M, Amer MI, El-Shamanhory AF. A comparative study of cone-beam CT and multidetector CT in the preoperative assessment of odontogenic cysts and tumors. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2013; 44(1): 23 – 32.

8. Suprijanto, Epsilawati L, Hajarini MS, Juliastuti E, Susanti H. Image analysis for dental bone quality assessment using CBCT imaging. J Phys Conf Ser. 2016; 694: 12065.

9. Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer SR, Mupparapu M. CBCT-based bone quality assessment: Are Hounsfield units applicable?. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2015; 44(1): 1–16.

10. Kwon JJ, Song YD, Jun SH. Correlation Between Bone Quality Evaluated by Cone-Beam Computerized Tomography and Implant Primary Stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24(1): 59 – 64.

11. Al-Zahrani MS, Elfirt EY, Al-Ahmari MM, Yamany IA, Alabdulkarim MA, Zawawi KH. Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography-Derived Alveolar Bone Density Between Subjects with and without Aggressive Periodontitis. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research : JCDR. 2017; 11(1): 118 – 121.

12. Chugh T, Jain AK, Jaiswal RK, Mehrotra P, Mehrotra R. Bone density and its importance in orthodontics. Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research. 2013; 3(2): 92 – 97.

13. Gulsahi A. Bone Quality Assessment for Dental Implants [Internet]. Rijeka:Intech; 2009 [cited 2017 March 25]. Available from Intech: http://www.intechopen.com/source/pdfs/21562/InTech-Bone_quality_assessment_for_dental_implants.pdf

14. Unnanuntana A, Rebolledo BJ, Michael Khair M, DiCarlo EF, Lane JM. Diseases Affecting Bone Quality: Beyond Osteoporosis. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2011; 469(8): 2194 – 2206.

15. Sumantri DDS, Firman R, Azhari A. Analisis radiograf periapikal menggunakan software imageJ pada abses periapikal setelah perawatan endodontik. Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Indonesia. 2017; 3(1): 29 – 34.

16. Seriwatanachai D. Reference and Techniques used in Alveolar Bone Classification. JBR J Interdiscip Med Dent Sci. 2015; 3(2): 1 – 5.

17. Razi T, Niknami M, Alavi Ghazani F. Relationship between Hounsfield Unit in CT Scan and Gray Scale in CBCT. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2014; 8(2): 107 – 110.

18. Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2010; 39(6): 323 – 335.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.26808