METHODS: Twenty volumes of interests consisting of six anterior and fourteen posterior edentulous regions were obtained from human mandibular cadavers. A CBCT system with a resolution of 80 µm (3D Accuitomo 170, J. Morita, Kyoto, Japan) and a µCT system with a resolution of 35 µm (SkyScan 1173, Kontich, Belgium) were used to scan the mandibles. Three structural parameters namely, trabecular number (Tb.N), trabecular thickness (Tb.Th), and trabecular separation (Tb.Sp) were analysed using CTAn software (v 1.11, SkyScan, Kontich, Belgium). For each system, the measurements obtained from anterior and posterior regions were tested using independent sample t-test. Subsequently, all measurements between systems were tested using paired t-test.
RESULTS: In CBCT, all parameters of the anterior and posterior mandible showed no significant differences (p > 0.05). However, µCT showed a significant different of Tb.Th (p = 0.023) between anterior and posterior region. Regardless of regions, the measurements obtained using both imaging systems were significantly different (p ≤ 0.021) for Tb.Th and Tb.N.
CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrated that only the variation of Tb.Th between anterior and posterior edentulous region of mandible can be detected using µCT. In addition, CBCT is less feasible than µCT in assessing trabecular bone microstructures at both regions.
Case presentation: We present a rare case of adult intussusception who presented with a triad of intestinal obstruction. Computed tomography revealed small bowel intussusception with bowel ischemia. Intraoperatively, she required resection of the small bowel and primary anastomosis. Macroscopic examination revealed a single pedunculated polyp, which is the lead point of intestinal obstruction and confirmed histologically.
Conclusion: Inflammatory fibroid polyp should be considered as a cause of intussusception among adults with small bowel obstruction.
METHODS: Fifty digital models were scanned from the same plaster models. Arch and tooth size measurements were made by 2 operators, twice. Calibration was done on 10 sets of models and checked using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Data were analyzed by error variances, repeatability coefficient, repeated-measures analysis of variance, and Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: Error variances ranged between 0.001 and 0.044 mm for the digital caliper method, and between 0.002 and 0.054 mm for the 3D software method. Repeated-measures analysis of variance showed small but statistically significant differences (P <0.05) between the repeated measurements in the arch and buccolingual planes (0.011 and 0.008 mm, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between methods and between operators. Bland-Altman plots showed that the mean biases were close to zero, and the 95% limits of agreement were within ±0.50 mm. Repeatability coefficients for all measurements were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: Measurements made on models scanned by the 3D structured-light scanner were in good agreement with those made on conventional plaster models and were, therefore, clinically acceptable.