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
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28 (2013), No. 2     15. Mar. 2013
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28 (2013), No. 2  (15.03.2013)

Page 536-542, doi:10.11607/jomi.2403, PubMed:23527357

Comparison of the Accuracy of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Medical Computed Tomography: Implications for Clinical Diagnostics with Guided Surgery
Abboud, Marcus / Guirado, José Luis Calvo / Orentlicher, Gary / Wahl, Gerhard
Purpose: This study compared the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and medicalgrade CT in the context of evaluating the diagnostic value and accuracy of fiducial marker localization for reference marker-based guided surgery systems.
Materials and Methods: Cadaver mandibles with attached radiopaque gutta-percha markers, as well as glass balls and composite cylinders of known dimensions, were measured manually with a highly accurate digital caliper. The objects were then scanned using a medical-grade CT scanner (Philips Brilliance 64) and five different CBCT scanners (Sirona Galileos, Morita 3D Accuitomo 80, Vatech PaX-Reve3D, 3M Imtech Iluma, and Planmeca ProMax 3D). The data were then imported into commercially available software, and measurements were made of the scanned markers and objects. CT and CBCT measurements were compared to each other and to the caliper measurements.
Results: The difference between the CBCT measurements and the caliper measurements was larger than the difference between the CT measurements and the caliper measurements. Measurements of the cadaver mandible and the geometric reference markers were highly accurate with CT. The average absolute errors of the human mandible measurements were 0.03 mm for CT and 0.23 mm for CBCT. The measurement errors of the geometric objects based on CT ranged between 0.00 and 0.12 mm, compared to an error range between 0.00 and 2.17 mm with the CBCT scanners.
Conclusions: CT provided the most accurate images in this study, closely followed by one CBCT of the five tested. Although there were differences in the distance measurements of the hard tissue of the human mandible between CT and CBCT, these differences may not be of clinical significance for most diagnostic purposes. The fiducial marker localization error caused by some CBCT scanners may be a problem for guided surgery systems.