Page 42 - Craniomaxillofacial Implant Surgery - Jeroen P.J. Dings

40
Chapter 2
capabilities. In this study, variation in brightness and contrast settings showed statistically significant less variation in interobserver error on cross-sectional images from CBCT image data (P=.03) but statistically significant greater difference with regard to absolute errors compared to MDCT (P = .0015). However, comparing outcomes with other studies is difficult due to various measurement methods, reconstruction protocols and different model generations of radiological devices.
CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of the present study, linear measurements on cross-sectional images derived from CBCT and MDCT image data with different contrast settings yield statistically significant submillimeter overestimation of the anatomical truth. For most clinical purposes both MDCT and CBCT are reliable imaging modalities for pre-surgical planning of craniofacial implants, however, digital exaggeration of measurements should be taken into account.
Future standardized studies should consider including multiple MDCT and CBCT scanners, image acquisition protocols and software packages in investigating the accuracy and reliability of craniofacial implant site measurements.