Factors affecting the accuracy of buccal alveolar bone height measurements from cone-beam computed tomography images.

INTRODUCTION

The reasons for inaccuracies in alveolar bone measurement from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images might be multifactorial. In this study, we investigated the impact of software, the presence or absence of soft tissues, the voxel size of the scan, and the regions in the jaws on buccal alveolar bone height measurements in pigs at an age equivalent to human adolescents.

METHODS

Marker holes, apical to the maxillary and mandibular molar roots, and mesiodistal molar occlusal reference grooves were created in 6 fresh pig heads (12 for each jaw), followed by CBCT scans at 0.4-mm and 0.2-mm voxel sizes under soft-tissue presence and soft-tissue absence conditions. Subsequently, buccolingual sections bisecting the marker holes were cut, from which the physical alveolar bone height and thickness were measured. One blinded rater, using Dolphin (version 11.5 Premium; Dolphin Imaging, Chatsworth, Calif) and OsiriX (version 3.9; www.osirix-viewer.com) software, independently collected alveolar bone height measurements from the CBCT images. Differences between the CBCT and the physical measurements were calculated. The mean differences and the limit of agreement (LOA, ±1.96 SD) for every jaw, voxel-size, soft-tissue, and software condition were depicted. Each measurement was then assessed for clinical inaccuracy by using 2 levels of criteria (absolute differences between CBCT and physical measurements ≥1 mm, or absolute differences between CBCT and physical measurements ≥0.5 mm), and the interactions between soft-tissue and voxel-size factors for every jaw and software condition were assessed by chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Overall, the mean differences between the CBCT and the physical measurements for every jaw, voxel-size, soft-tissue, and software condition were near 0. With all other conditions kept equal, the accuracy of the maxillary CBCT measurements was inferior (larger limit of agreement ranges and higher frequencies of clinical inaccuracy) to the mandibular measurements. The physical thickness of the maxillary alveolar crestal bone was less than 1 mm and significantly thinner than the mandibular counterparts. For every jaw and software condition, the accuracy of measurements from the 0.2-mm soft-tissue presence CBCT images was consistently superior (smaller limit of agreement ranges and lower frequencies of clinical inaccuracy) to those from the 0.4-mm soft-tissue presence, the 0.4-mm soft-tissue absence, and the 0.2-mm soft-tissue absence images; all showed similar accuracies. Qualitatively, the soft-tissue absence images demonstrated much brighter enamel and alveolar bone surface contours than did the soft-tissue presence images.

CONCLUSIONS

At an adolescent age, the buccal alveolar bone height measured from the maxillary molar region based on 0.4-mm voxel-size CBCT images can have relatively large and frequently inaccurate measurements, possibly due to its thinness. By using 0.2-mm voxel-size scans, measurement accuracy might be improved, but only when the overlying facial and gingival tissues are kept intact.