請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/90318
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 張瑞青 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.advisor | Zwei-Chieng Chang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 謝其曄 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | Chi-Yeh Hsieh | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-09-26T16:14:41Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-11-10 | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2023-09-26 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | - |
dc.date.submitted | 2023-06-30 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Quintero, J.C., et al., Craniofacial imaging in orthodontics: historical perspective, current status, and future developments. Angle Orthod, 1999. 69(6): p. 491-506.
Oransky, I., Sir Godfrey N. Hounsfield. Lancet, 2004. 364(9439): p. 1032. Kalender, W.A., X-ray computed tomography. Phys Med Biol, 2006. 51(13): p. R29-43. Lewis, M.A., Multislice CT: opportunities and challenges. Br J Radiol, 2001. 74(885): p. 779-81. Mozzo, P., et al., A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol, 1998. 8(9): p. 1558-64. Kapshe, N., M. Pujar, and S. Jaiswal, Cone beam computed tomography: A review. International Journal of Oral Health Dentistry., 2020: p. 71-77. Angelopoulos, C., W.C. Scarfe, and A.G. Farman, A comparison of maxillofacial CBCT and medical CT. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am, 2012. 20(1): p. 1-17. Patel, S., et al., Cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. First ed. 2016: Quintessence Publishing. Loubele, M., et al., Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol, 2009. 71(3): p. 461-8. Miracle, A.C. and S.K. Mukherji, Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 1: physical principles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2009. 30(6): p. 1088-95. Pauwels, R., et al., CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable? Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2015. 44(1): p. 20140238. Tao, B., et al., Comparative accuracy of cone-beam CT and conventional multislice computed tomography for real-time navigation in zygomatic implant surgery. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2020. 22(6): p. 747-755. Apostolakis, D. and J.E. Brown, The anterior loop of the inferior alveolar nerve: prevalence, measurement of its length and a recommendation for interforaminal implant installation based on cone beam CT imaging. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2012. 23(9): p. 1022-30. Wang, X., et al., 3D morphometric quantification of maxillae and defects for patients with unilateral cleft palate via deep learning-based CBCT image auto-segmentation. Orthod Craniofac Res, 2021. Chen, S., et al., [Evaluation of occlusal reconstruction and cone-beam CT measurement of temporomandibular joint in patients with severe tooth wear]. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue, 2019. 28(3): p. 275-278. Chaudhry, U., J.R. Cohen, and Y. Al-Samawi, Use of cone beam computed tomography imaging for airway measurement to predict obstructive sleep apnea. Cranio, 2020: p. 1-7. Flores-Mir, C., et al., Measurement accuracy and reliability of tooth length on conventional and CBCT reconstructed panoramic radiographs. Dental Press J Orthod, 2014. 19(5): p. 45-53. Li, W., et al., Volumetric measurement of root resorption following molar mini-screw implant intrusion using cone beam computed tomography. PLoS One, 2013. 8(4): p. e60962. Al-Jamal, M.F.J. and H.A. Al-Jumaily, Can the Bone Density Estimated by CBCT Predict the Primary Stability of Dental Implants? A New Measurement Protocol. J Craniofac Surg, 2021. 32(2): p. e171-e174. Banodkar, A.B., et al., Evaluation of accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for measurement of periodontal defects: A clinical study. J Indian Soc Periodontol, 2015. 19(3): p. 285-9. Shen, J.W., et al., [Measurement of facial bone wall thickness of maxillary anterior teeth and premolars on cone beam computed tomography images]. Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban, 2012. 41(3): p. 234-8. Zhao, H., et al., Measurement of cortical bone thickness in adults by cone-beam computerized tomography for orthodontic miniscrews placement. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci, 2013. 33(2): p. 303-308. Jeger, F.B., et al., Endodontic working length measurement with preexisting cone-beam computed tomography scanning: a prospective, controlled clinical study. J Endod, 2012. 38(7): p. 884-8. Kucher, M., et al., Continuous Measurement of Three-Dimensional Root Canal Curvature Using Cone-Beam Computed and Micro-Computed Tomography: A Comparative Study. Dent J (Basel), 2020. 8(1). Kim, M., et al., Evaluation of accuracy of 3D reconstruction images using multi-detector CT and cone-beam CT. Imaging Sci Dent, 2012. 42(1): p. 25-33. Poeschl, P.W., et al., Comparison of cone-beam and conventional multislice computed tomography for image-guided dental implant planning. Clin Oral Investig, 2013. 17(1): p. 317-24. Pena de Andrade, J.G., et al., Comparison of 64-Detector-Multislice and Cone Beam Computed Tomographies in the Evaluation of Linear Measurements in the Alveolar Ridge. Int J Prosthodont, 2016. 29(2): p. 132-4. Vandenberghe, B., et al., The influence of exposure parameters on jawbone model accuracy using cone beam CT and multislice CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2012. 41(6): p. 466-74. Suomalainen, A., et al., Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2008. 37(1): p. 10-7. Freire-Maia, B., et al., Evaluation of the accuracy of linear measurements on multi-slice and cone beam computed tomography scans to detect the mandibular canal during bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2017. 46(3): p. 296-302. Loubele, M., et al., Comparative localized linear accuracy of small-field cone-beam CT and multislice CT for alveolar bone measurements. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2008. 105(4): p. 512-8. Liang, X., et al., A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT). Part II: On 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol, 2010. 75(2): p. 270-4. Kang, S.H., Y.H. Kim, and M.K. Kim, Comparison of digital dental images yielded by digital dental casts, cone-beam computed tomography, and multislice computed tomography for measurement of dental area. Oral Radiology, 2017. 33(1): p. 23-31. Matta, R.E., et al., The impact of different cone beam computed tomography and multi-slice computed tomography scan parameters on virtual three-dimensional model accuracy using a highly precise ex vivo evaluation method. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2016. 44(5): p. 632-6. Primo, B.T., et al., Accuracy assessment of prototypes produced using multi-slice and cone-beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012. 41(10): p. 1291-5. Yousefi, F., et al., Accuracy of maxillofacial prototypes fabricated by different 3-dimensional printing technologies using multi-slice and cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent, 2021. 51(1): p. 41-47. Chen, H., et al., Accuracy of MDCT and CBCT in three-dimensional evaluation of the oropharynx morphology. Eur J Orthod, 2018. 40(1): p. 58-64. Albuquerque, M.A., B.F. Gaia, and M.G. Cavalcanti, Comparison between multislice and cone-beam computerized tomography in the volumetric assessment of cleft palate. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2011. 112(2): p. 249-57. Eskandarlou, A., et al., Comparison between cone beam computed tomography and multislice computed tomography in diagnostic accuracy of maxillofacial fractures in dried human skull: an in vitro study. Dent Traumatol, 2014. 30(2): p. 162-8. Gaia, B.F., et al., Comparison between cone-beam and multislice computed tomography for identification of simulated bone lesions. Braz Oral Res, 2011. 25(4): p. 362-8. Patrick, S., et al., Comparison of gray values of cone-beam computed tomography with hounsfield units of multislice computed tomography: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res, 2017. 28(1): p. 66-70. Naitoh, M., et al., Comparison between cone-beam and multislice computed tomography depicting mandibular neurovascular canal structures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2010. 109(1): p. e25-31. Dreiseidler, T., et al., A comparison of multislice computerized tomography, cone-beam computerized tomography, and single photon emission computerized tomography for the assessment of bone invasion by oral malignancies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2011. 112(3): p. 367-74. Zimmerman, J.N., J. Lee, and B.T. Pliska, Reliability of upper pharyngeal airway assessment using dental CBCT: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod, 2017. 39(5): p. 489-496. Mattos, C.T., et al., Reliability of upper airway linear, area, and volumetric measurements in cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2014. 145(2): p. 188-97. Pangrazio-Kulbersh, V., et al., Cone beam computed tomography evaluation of changes in the naso-maxillary complex associated with two types of maxillary expanders. Angle Orthod, 2012. 82(3): p. 448-57. Kavand, G., et al., Retrospective CBCT analysis of airway volume changes after bone-borne vs tooth-borne rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod, 2019. 89(4): p. 566-574. Yilmaz, B.S. and N. Kucukkeles, Skeletal, soft tissue, and airway changes following the alternate maxillary expansions and constrictions protocol. Angle Orthod, 2014. 84(5): p. 868-77. Cho, A.R., et al., Short-term effects of microimplant-assisted rapid palatal expansion on the circummaxillary sutures in skeletally mature patients: A cone-beam computed tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2022. 161(2): p. e187-e197. Angelieri, F., et al., Zygomaticomaxillary suture maturation: A predictor of maxillary protraction? Part I - A classification method. Orthod Craniofac Res, 2017. 20(2): p. 85-94. El, H. and J.M. Palomo, Three-dimensional evaluation of upper airway following rapid maxillary expansion: a CBCT study. Angle Orthod, 2014. 84(2): p. 265-73. Almuzian, M., et al., Does rapid maxillary expansion affect nasopharyngeal airway? A prospective Cone Beam Computerised Tomography (CBCT) based study. Surgeon, 2018. 16(1): p. 1-11. Celikoglu, M., et al., Assessment of pharyngeal airway volume in adolescent patients affected by bilateral cleft lip and palate using cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod, 2014. 84(6): p. 995-1001. Guijarro-Martínez, R. and G.R. Swennen, Three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography definition of the anatomical subregions of the upper airway: a validation study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2013. 42(9): p. 1140-9. Iwasaki, T., et al., Relationships among tongue volume, hyoid position, airway volume and maxillofacial form in paediatric patients with Class-I, Class-II and Class-III malocclusions. Orthod Craniofac Res, 2019. 22(1): p. 9-15. Landis, J.R. and G.G. Koch, The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 1977. 33(1): p. 159-74. Nimbalkar, S. Accuracy of Volumetric Analysis Software Packages in Assessment of Tooth Volume Using CBCT. 2016. Weissheimer, A., et al., Imaging software accuracy for 3-dimensional analysis of the upper airway. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2012. 142(6): p. 801-13. Campos, M.J., et al., Bone mineral density in cone beam computed tomography: Only a few shades of gray. World J Radiol, 2014. 6(8): p. 607-12. Silva, I.M., et al., Bone density: comparative evaluation of Hounsfield units in multislice and cone-beam computed tomography. Braz Oral Res, 2012. 26(6): p. 550-6. Hassan, B., P. van der Stelt, and G. Sanderink, Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. European Journal of Orthodontics, 2008. 31(2): p. 129-134. van Eijnatten, M., et al., Influence of head positioning during cone-beam CT imaging on the accuracy of virtual 3D models. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2022. 51(7): p. 20220104. Coppelson, K., et al., Does Head and Neck Posture Affect Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Assessment of the Upper Airway? J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2023. Pae, E.K., et al., A cephalometric and electromyographic study of upper airway structures in the upright and supine positions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1994. 106(1): p. 52-9. Pliska, B.T., et al., Effect of orthodontic treatment on the upper airway volume in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2016. 150(6): p. 937-944. Yi, F., et al., Changes of the upper airway and bone in microimplant-assisted rapid palatal expansion: A cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) study. J Xray Sci Technol, 2020. 28(2): p. 271-283. Obelenis Ryan, D.P., et al., Cone-beam computed tomography airway measurements: Can we trust them? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2019. 156(1): p. 53-60. Damstra, J., et al., Reliability and the smallest detectable difference of measurements on 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2011. 140(3): p. e107-14. Wood, R., et al., Factors affecting the accuracy of buccal alveolar bone height measurements from cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2013. 143(3): p. 353-63. Amin, W. and M.-W. Saleh, Accuracy of a customized volumetric rendering program in linear measurement of cone beam and multi-slice computed tomography derived three-dimensional images. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, 2015. 3(2): p. 33-38. Yoshida, Y., et al., [Comparison of a dental cone beam CT with a multi-detector row CT on effective doses and physical image quality]. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi, 2011. 67(1): p. 25-31. Jones, E.M., et al., Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography with multislice computed tomography in detection of small osseous condylar defects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2016. 150(1): p. 130-9. Sirin, Y., et al., Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and conventional multislice spiral tomography in sheep mandibular condyle fractures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2010. 39(6): p. 336-42. Doyle, S., M.J. Wiltz, and R.A. Kraut, Comparison of Cone-beam Computed Tomography and Multi-slice Spiral Computed Tomography Bone Density Measurements in the Maxilla and Mandible. N Y State Dent J, 2015. 81(4): p. 42-5. Shen, E.C., et al., Bifid mandibular canals and their cortex thicknesses: A comparison study on images obtained from cone-beam and multislice computed tomography. J Dent Sci, 2016. 11(2): p. 170-174. Loubele, M., et al., A comparison of jaw dimensional and quality assessments of bone characteristics with cone-beam CT, spiral tomography, and multi-slice spiral CT. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2007. 22(3): p. 446-54. Chindasombatjaroen, J., et al., Quantitative analysis of metallic artifacts caused by dental metals: comparison of cone-beam and multi-detector row CT scanners. Oral Radiology, 2011. 27(2): p. 114-120. Van Dessel, J., et al., Accuracy and reliability of different cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices for structural analysis of alveolar bone in comparison with multislice CT and micro-CT. Eur J Oral Implantol, 2017. 10(1): p. 95-105. Naser, A.Z. and B.B. Mehr, A comparative study of accuracy of linear measurements using cone beam and multi-slice computed tomographies for evaluation of mandibular canal location in dry mandibles. Dent Res J (Isfahan), 2013. 10(1): p. 15-9. | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/90318 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 目的
近年來,有越來越多學者使用錐狀射束電腦斷層掃描(cone-beam computed tomography, CBCT)進行各種研究。然而與多切片電腦斷層掃描(multislice computed tomography, MSCT)相比,CBCT對於偵測軟組織間的差異有其侷限且影像雜訊較多。此外,CBCT拍攝整個頭部需要較長的時間,可能因病患呼吸產生假影(artifacts)。儘管如此,回顧文獻發現單單2021年就有約百篇的研究是與CBCT測量呼吸道大小有關。有鑒於目前並沒有針對MSCT與CBCT在矯正領域中軟硬組織測量值差異以及可信度的的比較,因此本研究旨在針對MSCT和CBCT在矯正領域中軟硬組織測量值差異和可信度進行比較,以提供臨床實踐和決策支持。 研究程序及方法 本研究為一個回溯性研究,透過台大醫院的醫療整合資料庫,檢索2016-2021年期間,接受過兩次頭頸部電腦斷層掃描的病患,並且通過院內系統查證他們在此期間內沒有接受過任何可能導致顱顏結構明顯變化的治療。並將拍攝一次CBCT和一次MSCT的病患歸於BOTH組;拍攝兩次CBCT的病患歸於CBCT組;拍攝兩次MSCT的病患歸於MSCT組以及另外使用一顆頭顱骨分別拍攝一次CBCT與MSCT稱為SKULL組。使用Dolphin軟體和Amira軟體對CBCT和MSCT影像對四大組進行分析,並請6位觀察者測量BOTH組和SKULL組,而CBCT組與MSCT組找1位觀察者進行測量,測量包含矯正領域常用的軟硬組織變項,接著比較測量值的觀察者內(intra-rater)和觀察者間(inter-rater)的差異以及信度(reliability)等。 結果 大多數變項之觀察者間組內相關係數(Intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC)與觀察者內ICC為「幾乎完美一致」級別(0.81-0.99),只有少數一些變項為「非常一致」級別(0.61-0.80),包含:ANW(anterior nasal width)、PNW(posterior nasal width)、FM r-l(frontomaxillary suture right to left)、INC r-l(Inner nasal contour point right to left)以及MCA(minimum cross-sectional area in oropharynx)等。整體而言,這些結果顯示出ICC之一致性相當不錯,對於此研究的信度具有一定的支持。但從敘述性統計與檢定觀察,同種成像方式之同一受試者其測量變項,在測量軟體上有著顯著差異,尤其是軟組織類。另外也發現SKULL組全部變項之標準差都於1 個度量衡單位之內(如:1 mm、1度等),而BOTH組中不論成像方式為CBCT或MSCT,當測量軟體為Dolphin時,其三大類變項,如:ANW、ANFW(anterior nasal floor width)、PNW、PNFW(posterior nasal floor width)、Inter-Mpa(intermolar width at the first molar palatal apex level)、Inter-Mcf(intermolar width at the first molar central fossa level)、ZMU r-l(zygomaticomaxillary upper right to left)、ZML r-l(zygomaticomaxillary lower right to left)、Co-A(condylion to point A)以及Co-Gn(condylion to gnathion)等之標準差在臨床測量上可能會超出1個度量衡單位;當測量軟體為Amira時,其三大類變項,如:PNFW、ZTU r-l(zygomaticotemporal suture upper right to left)、ZMU r-l以及ZML r-l等之標準差在臨床測量上可能會超出1個度量衡單位。 而針對MSCT組與CBCT組而言,使用Amira軟體時,Inter-Mcf和TOH在MSCT重拍之差異與CBCT重拍之差異有顯著差異;使用Dolphin軟體時,Inter-Mcf、INC r-l和OAV在MSCT重拍之差異與CBCT重拍之差異有顯著差異;進行MSCT拍攝時,ANW、ANFW、PNW、PNFW、EMW、ZTU r-l、FZ r-l、INC r-l、ZMU r-l、SNA、SNB以及SNGoGn在Amira重測之差異與Dolphin重測之差異有顯著差異;進行CBCT拍攝時,ANW、PNW、Inter-Mpa、FZ r-l、Co-Gn以及OAV在Amira重測之差異與Dolphin重測之差異有顯著差異。 結論 儘管統計上ICC有著相當不錯的一致性,但於臨床上不論哪項變項,其測量之誤差還是經常超出一個度量衡單位的黃金標準,本研究建議在進行齒顎矯正治療或是口腔顎面外科手術前之術前評估,成像方式上MSCT與CBCT都可以提供有用的資訊,測量軟體選擇上可使用Amira軟體,以獲得更加準確和可靠的測量結果。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Objective
In recent years, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has been used by many scholars for various research purposes. However, compared with multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT), CBCT has more image noise, which limits its ability to detect differences between soft tissues. In addition, CBCT takes longer to capture images of the entire head and may produce artifacts due to patient motion. Despite this, reviews of the literature show that about 100 studies in 2021 alone were related to CBCT measurements of airway size. Given the lack of comparison between MSCT and CBCT in terms of differences and reliability of soft and hard tissue measurements in the orthodontic field, this study aims to provide clinical practice and decision support by comparing the differences and reliability of these measurements between MSCT and CBCT. Material and methods This study is a retrospective study that involved retrieving patients from the integrated medical database of National Taiwan University Hospital who underwent two head and neck computed tomography (CT) scans between 2016 and 2021. It was verified through the hospital system that these patients did not receive any treatments during this period that could have led to significant changes in craniofacial structures. The patients who underwent one CBCT scan and one MSCT scan were categorized into the BOTH group. Those who had two CBCT scans were categorized into the CBCT group, while those who had two MSCT scans were categorized into the MSCT group. A A skull was used and undergone one CBCT scan and one MSCT scan, then categorized into the SKULL group. The CBCT and MSCT images were analyzed using Dolphin software and Amira software for the four groups. Six raters were assigned to measure the BOTH and SKULL groups, while one rater was assigned to measure the CBCT and MSCT groups. The measurements included commonly used soft and hard tissue variables in orthodontics. The differences and reliability (intra-rater and inter-rater) of the measurements were then compared. Results Most of the inter-examiner and intra-examiner’s intraclass correlation coefficient, (ICC) for the variables were in the "almost perfect agreement" category (0.81-0.99), with only a few variables falling into the "substantial agreement" category (0.61-0.80), including ANW(anterior nasal width), PNW(posterior nasal width), FM r-l(frontomaxillary suture right to left), INC r-l(Inner nasal contour point right to left) and MCA(minimum cross-sectional area in oropharynx). Overall, these results showed good consistency of the ICCs and provided some support for the reliability of this study. However, from descriptive statistics and tests, it was observed that there were significant differences in measurement variables within the same subject for the same imaging modality, particularly in the category of soft tissue, across different measurement software. It was also observed that the standard deviations of all variables in the SKULL group were within 1 unit of measurement (e.g., 1 mm, 1 degree). However, in the BOTH group, regardless of the imaging modality being CBCT or MSCT, when using the Dolphin software, the standard deviations of the three major categories of variables, such as ANW, ANFW(anterior nasal floor width), PNW, PNFW(posterior nasal floor width), Inter-Mpa(intermolar width at the first molar palatal apex level), Inter-Mcf(intermolar width at the first molar central fossa level), ZMU r-l(zygomaticomaxillary upper right to left), ZML r-l(zygomaticomaxillary lower right to left), Co-A(condylion to point A) and Co-Gn(condylion to gnathion) might exceed one unit of measurement in clinical measurements. When using the Amira software, the standard deviations of the three major categories of variables, such as PNFW, ZTU r-l(zygomaticotemporal suture upper right to left), ZMU r-l, and ZML r-l might exceed one unit of measurement in clinical measurements. As for MSCT group and CBCT group, when using Amira software, the Inter-Mcf and TOH showed a significant difference between MSCT and CBCT reshoots. When using Dolphin software, the Inter-Mcf, INC r-l, and OAV showed a significant difference between MSCT and CBCT reshoots. When performing MSCT scans, the ANW, ANFW, PNW, PNFW, EMW, ZTU r-l, FZ r-l, INC r-l, ZMU r-l, SNA, SNB, and SNGoGn showed a significant difference between Amira and Dolphin repeated measurements. When performing CBCT scans, the ANW, PNW, Inter-Mpa, FZ r-l, Co-Gn, and OAV showed a significant difference between Amira and Dolphin repeated measurements. Conclusion Although there is fairly good consistency in terms of ICC in statistical analysis, the measurement errors for all variables in clinical practice often exceed one unit of the gold standard measurement. This study suggests that in preoperative evaluations for orthodontic treatment or oral maxillofacial surgery, both MSCT and CBCT imaging can provide valuable information. In terms of measurement software selection, using Amira software is recommended to obtain more accurate and reliable measurement results. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-09-26T16:14:41Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-09-26T16:14:41Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 致謝 i
中文摘要 ii Abstract v CONTENTS viii LIST OF FIGURES xi LIST OF TABLES xiii Chapter 1 緒論 1 1.1 影像技術的演進 1 1.2 CBCT與MSCT的差異 2 1.2.1 基本性質 2 1.2.2 圖像品質 3 1.2.3 CBCT於牙科領域的應用 5 1.2.4 過去文獻對於CBCT與MSCT之比較 6 1.2.5 現行CBCT於上呼吸道之信度探討 8 1.3 研究目的 9 Chapter 2 研究程序及方法 10 2.1 實驗概念與虛無假設 10 2.2 實驗步驟 10 2.2.1 受試者篩選 10 2.2.2 實驗分組 11 2.2.3 CBCT與MSCT之參數設定 12 2.2.4 影像測量流程 12 2.2.5 觀察者之標準化 14 2.2.6 統計分析 14 Chapter 3 結果 17 3.1.1 病患人口統計資料(demographic data) 17 3.1.2 觀察者內信度 17 3.1.3 觀察者間信度 17 3.1.4 BOTH組與SKULL組敘述性統計與比較 18 3.1.5 預測模型 19 3.1.6 魏克生符號等級檢定 20 Chapter 4 討論 21 4.1 Amira軟體與Dolphin軟體之介紹 21 4.2 CBCT對於校正HU值之爭議 22 4.3 觀察者間信度與觀察者內信度之探討 23 4.4 頭顱擺位定向之影響 24 4.5 CBCT於呼吸道測量之應用與限制 25 4.6 目前臨床與影像測量上所能接受的誤差 27 4.7 本研究之限制 29 Chapter 5 結論 30 Chapter 6 未來研究方向 32 Reference 33 | - |
dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
dc.title | 錐狀射束電腦斷層掃描與多切片電腦斷層掃描對於顱顏軟硬組織測量之比較 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Comparison of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) in the measurement of craniofacial soft and hard tissues | en |
dc.type | Thesis | - |
dc.date.schoolyear | 111-2 | - |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 郭彥彬;孫瑞昇 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Yen-Ping Kuo;Jui-Sheng Sun | en |
dc.subject.keyword | 錐狀射束電腦斷層掃描,多切片電腦斷層掃描,Amira軟體,Dolphin軟體,信度,組內相關係數, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Cone-beam computed tomography(CBCT),Multi-slice computed tomography(MSCT),Amira software,Dolphin software,reliability,intraclass correlation coefficient, | en |
dc.relation.page | 88 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202301206 | - |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | - |
dc.date.accepted | 2023-07-03 | - |
dc.contributor.author-college | 醫學院 | - |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 臨床牙醫學研究所 | - |
顯示於系所單位: | 臨床牙醫學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-111-2.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 10.64 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。