Dataset Information

Comparative study of the accuracy of CBCT implant site measurements using different software programs.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To measure and compare the accuracy of the linear dimensions of implant sites recorded from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images using Blue Sky Plan, coDiagnostiX, and RadiAnt.

Materials and methods

Five human dry skulls were imaged with a CBCT device then sectioned to obtain sample transverse cross-sections of the edentulous ridges, and the height and width of the ridge were measured with a digital caliper to provide the gold standard measurements. The CBCT datasets were exported in DICOM format and imported into the three test software programs which were used to obtain reformatted sectional images corresponding to the sample transverse cross-sections, and the height and width of the edentulous ridge was recorded using the linear measurement tool. Reliability of the measurements were measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient. One-sample t-test (test value: zero) was used to test the statistical significance of the mean of the absolute errors for each software program. Analysis of Variance with Repeated Measures was used to test the statistical significance of the difference between the means of the absolute errors obtained by the different software programs. Statistical significance was set at a p-value of 0.05.

Results

The reliability of the gold standard and image measurements were excellent. All three software programs demonstrated a statistically significant mean absolute measurement error of between 0.43 and 0.56 mm (p-value < 0.01), but no significant difference in error values was found between any of the tested programs (p- value = 0.18).

Conclusions

There was no statistically significant difference in accuracy of linear CBCT measurements of implant sites recorded using Blue Sky Plan, coDiagnostiX, and RadiAnt.

SUBMITTER: Al-Ekrish AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8376669 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo compare the accuracy, inter- and intrarater reliability, and user-experience of manual and semi-automatic preoperative leg-alignment measurement planning software for high tibial osteotomy (HTO).MethodsThirty patients (31 lower limbs) who underwent a medial opening wedge HTO between 2017 and 2019 were retrospectively included. The mechanical lateral distal femur angle (mLDFA), mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA), and planned correction angle were measured on preoperative long-leg full weight-bearing radiographs utilising PACS Jivex Review® v5.2 manual and TraumaCad® v2.4 semi-automatic planning software. Independent measurements were performed by four raters. Two raters repeated the measurements. Accuracy in the standard error of measurement (SEM), inter- and intrarater reliability, and user-experience were analysed. Additionally, measurements errors of more than 3° were remeasured and reanalysed.ResultsThe SEMs of all measured varus malalignment angles and planned correction angle were within 0.8° of accuracy for both software programs. Measurements utilising the manual software demonstrated moderate interrater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)-values for the mLDFA and mMPTA, and an excellent interrater ICC-value for the correction angle (0.810, 0.779, and 0.981, respectively). Measurements utilising the semi-automatic software indicated excellent interrater ICC-values for the mLDFA, mMPTA, and correction angle (0.980, 0.909, and 0.989, respectively). The intrarater reliability varied substantially per angle, presenting excellent intrarater agreements by both raters (ICC > 0.900) for the correction angle in each software program as well as poor-to-excellent ICC-values for the mLDFA (0.282-0.951 and 0.316-0.926) and mMPTA (0.893-0.934 and 0.594-0.941) in both the manual planning and semi-automatic software. Regarding user-experience, semi-automatic software was preferred by two raters, while the other two raters had no distinctive preference. After remeasurement of five outliers, excellent interrater ICC-values were found for the mLDFA (0.913) and mMPTA (0.957).ConclusionsSemi-automatic software outperforms the manual software when user-experience and outliers are considered. However, both software programs provide similar performance after remeasurement of the human-related erroneous outliers. For clinical practice, both programs can be utilised for HTO planning.Level of evidenceDiagnostic study, Level III.