Evaluation of condyle defects using different reconstruction protocols of cone-beam computed tomography

• Autor(a) principal: Bastos,Luana Costa
• Data de Publicação: 2013
• Outros Autores: Campos,Paulo Sergio Flores, Ramos-Perez,Flavia Maria de Moraes, Pontual,Andrea dos Anjos, Almeida,Solange Maria
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Brazilian Oral Research
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242013000600503
• topic: Mandibular Condyle; Bone Diseases; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Image Enhancement

This study was conducted to investigate how well cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) can detect simulated cavitary defects in condyles, and to test the influence of the reconstruction protocols. Defects were created with spherical diamond burs (numbers 1013, 1016, 3017) in superior and/or posterior surfaces of twenty condyles. The condyles were scanned, and cross-sectional reconstructions were performed with nine different protocols, based on slice thickness (0.2, 0.6, 1.0 mm) and on the filters (original image, Sharpen Mild, S9) used. Two observers evaluated the defects, determining their presence and location. Statistical analysis was carried out using simple Kappa coefficient and McNemar's test to check inter- and intra-rater reliability. The chi-square test was used to compare the rater accuracy. Analysis of variance (Tukey's test) assessed the effect of the protocols used. Kappa values for inter- and intra-rater reliability demonstrate almost perfect agreement. The proportion of correct answers was significantly higher than that of errors for cavitary defects on both condyle surfaces (p < 0.01). Only in identifying the defects located on the posterior surface was it possible to observe the influence of the 1.0 mm protocol thickness and no filter, which showed a significantly lower value. Based on the results of the current study, the technique used was valid for identifying the existence of cavities in the condyle surface. However, the protocol of a 1.0 mm-thick slice and no filter proved to be the worst method for identifying the defects on the posterior surface.