Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Dec 17;12(12):413.
doi: 10.3390/dj12120413.

Accuracy of the Hounsfield Unit Values Measured by Implant Planning Software

Koudai Nagata  1 , Yusuke Kouzai  2   3 , Keitaro Inaba  4 , Manabu Fujii  3 , Mihoko Atsumi  1 , Katsuhiko Kimoto  5 , Shinji Kuroda  1 , Hiromasa Kawana  6
Affiliations

Accuracy of the Hounsfield Unit Values Measured by Implant Planning Software

Koudai Nagata et al. Dent J (Basel). .

Abstract

Background: The measurement of Hounsfield units (HU) during implant treatment planning is important. Currently, various manufacturers' implant planning software programs offer HU capabilities; however, their accuracy remains unverified. In this study, we aimed to validate the accuracy of HU values measured by implant planning software programs. Methods: This study used one type of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT), two types of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and four implant planning software packages. Three specimens were prepared for the evaluation of HUs, and the standard values of the HUs were measured. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data obtained from MDCT and CBCT were loaded into four implant planning software packages to measure the HU values. The HU and reference values of the four implant planning software programs obtained from MDCT and CBCT were compared. Additionally, the HU values between each implant planning software program were compared. Results: The HU values of the three specimens, as measured using the four implant planning software programs utilizing MDCT, did not exhibit a significant difference from the standard values. Conversely, those obtained from CBCT were significantly different. The measured HU values after the MDCT imaging of the specimens were not significantly different between the implant planning software programs; however, they differed after CBCT imaging. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that it is not possible to measure HU values using CBCT with implant planning software programs. However, HU values can be measured by any implant planning software using MDCT.

Keywords: Hounsfield units (HUs); cone–beam computed tomography (CBCT); dental implant; implant planning software; multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Three specimens with different hydroxyapatite contents were prepared. (a) Hydroxyapatite content of 200 mg/cm3 was set as Specimen 1. (b) Hydroxyapatite content of 100 mg/cm3 was set as Specimen 2. (c) Hydroxyapatite content of 0 mg/cm3 was set as Specimen 3.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Determination of standard values. Three specimens were initially imaged with MDCT, and the HU values were measured using SYNAPSE Result Manage. Measurements were taken in the same plane, with the HU values measured at the center and four corners, and the average value was used as the result. MDCT, multidetector computed tomography; HUs, Hounsfield units.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Four implant planning software programs were used. (a) coDiagnostiX®. (b) DTX Studio™ Implant. (c) LANDmarker®. (d) Simplant.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Methods of measuring the HU values differed for each implant planning software program. (a) HU values are measured using co by placing the tip of a simulated implant into the specimen. (b) In DTX, HU values are measured by selecting the HU value measurement tool at an arbitrary site. (c) In LAND, HU values are measured by selecting the HU value measurement tool at any site. (d) In Sim, HU values are measured by positioning the cursor on an arbitrary area. The measurement site was the same surface as that of the standard values; the HU values were measured at the center and four corners, and the average values were obtained. HUs, Hounsfield units.
Figure 5
Figure 5
After MDCT imaging, the HU values measured by implant planning software are not significantly different compared to the SV of the three specimens. HUs, Hounsfield units; MDCT, multidetector computed tomography.
Figure 6
Figure 6
After imaging with MDCT, the measured HU values of the three specimens are not significantly different between all implant planning software programs. HUs, Hounsfield units; MDCT, multidetector computed tomography.
Figure 7
Figure 7
(a) In the group measured by CBCT1, there were significant differences between co and DTX, co and LAND, and co and Sim in Specimen 1 (p < 0.05) and between DTX and LAND in Specimen 3 (p < 0.05). (b) In the CBCT2-measured group, there were significant differences in co and DTX, co and LAND, and co and Sim in Specimen 1 (p < 0.001). Significant differences were also observed between co and LAND, and DTX and LAND in Specimen 2, and between co and LAND, co and Sim, and DTX and LAND in Specimen 3. CBCT, cone–beam computed tomography.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Perschbacher S. Interpretation of panoramic radiographs. Aust. Dent. J. 2012;57((Suppl. S1)):40–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01655.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yüksel A.E., Gültekin S., Simsar E., Özdemir Ş.D., Gündoğar M., Tokgöz S.B., Hamamcı İ.E. Dental enumeration and multiple treatment detection on panoramic X-rays using deep learning. Sci. Rep. 2021;11:12342. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-90386-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kumar A., Bhadauria H.S., Singh A. Descriptive analysis of dental X-ray images using various practical methods: A review. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2021;7:e620. doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.620. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dings J.P., Verhamme L., Merkx M.A., Xi T., Meijer G.J., Maal T.J. Reliability and accuracy of cone beam computed tomography versus conventional multidetector computed tomography for image-guided craniofacial implant planning: An in vitro study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2019;34:665–672. doi: 10.11607/jomi.6915. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kuroshima S., Kaku M., Ishimoto T., Sasaki M., Nakano T., Sawase T. A paradigm shift for bone quality in dentistry: A literature review. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2017;61:353–362. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.05.006. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources