IADR Abstract Archives
Automated CBCT Analysis of Post-extraction Alveolar Bone Remodeling
Objectives: Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) has been widely used for detection of bone changes, using manual measurements. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether fully automated linear CBCT analysis, compared to volumetric CBCT analysis, can better detect bone remodeling changes following extraction and socket preservation (SP) or guided bone regeneration (GBR).
Methods: Adult patients scheduled to receive extraction plus SP/GBR were recruited. CBCTs (8 × 8 cm Field of View; 14.7 seconds exposure time; 0.2 mm voxel size) were obtained immediately postoperatively and at 4 months. For fully automated analysis, CBCT registration was performed based on maxillary bone landmarks. Then, the edentulous area was selected on the registered 3D images. Heat map tables representing bone thickness difference between two time points were generated and used to analyze bone loss. Data was compared with linear and volumetric measurements previously conducted by using semi-automated methods.
Results: 14 subjects (48 ± 5 years; 7 males) were included. Heat map table analysis revealed bone thickness loss <1mm at 4 months. No statistically significant bone loss differences were found between SP and GBR groups at selected areas (0.46±0.06mm and 0.42±0.09mm, respectively, p=0.72). Semi-automated linear measurements also failed to show significant differences between SP and GBR (0.75±0.24mm and 0.97±0.16mm mean bone loss, respectively, p=0.50). Volumetric measurements revealed significant bone thickness loss differences between SP and GBR (0.22±0.08cm3 and 0.33±0.16cm3, respectively, p=0.05).
Conclusions: Volumetric CBCT analysis can detect minor bone remodeling changes and suggests that GBR sites lose more bone than SP sites. Semi-automated and fully automated linear CBCT analyses appear less sensitive in detecting bone loss than volumetric analysis. Studies with larger sample size are required to test the fully automated technique further.
Methods: Adult patients scheduled to receive extraction plus SP/GBR were recruited. CBCTs (8 × 8 cm Field of View; 14.7 seconds exposure time; 0.2 mm voxel size) were obtained immediately postoperatively and at 4 months. For fully automated analysis, CBCT registration was performed based on maxillary bone landmarks. Then, the edentulous area was selected on the registered 3D images. Heat map tables representing bone thickness difference between two time points were generated and used to analyze bone loss. Data was compared with linear and volumetric measurements previously conducted by using semi-automated methods.
Results: 14 subjects (48 ± 5 years; 7 males) were included. Heat map table analysis revealed bone thickness loss <1mm at 4 months. No statistically significant bone loss differences were found between SP and GBR groups at selected areas (0.46±0.06mm and 0.42±0.09mm, respectively, p=0.72). Semi-automated linear measurements also failed to show significant differences between SP and GBR (0.75±0.24mm and 0.97±0.16mm mean bone loss, respectively, p=0.50). Volumetric measurements revealed significant bone thickness loss differences between SP and GBR (0.22±0.08cm3 and 0.33±0.16cm3, respectively, p=0.05).
Conclusions: Volumetric CBCT analysis can detect minor bone remodeling changes and suggests that GBR sites lose more bone than SP sites. Semi-automated and fully automated linear CBCT analyses appear less sensitive in detecting bone loss than volumetric analysis. Studies with larger sample size are required to test the fully automated technique further.