Digital DiagnosticsDigital DiagnosticsDigital DiagnosticsDigital Diagnostics2712-84902712-8962Eco-Vector50177110.17816/DD501771Original Study ArticlesОригинальные исследования原创性科研成果Research ArticleBone mineral density radiopaque templates for cone beam computed tomography and multidetector computed tomographyРентгеноконтрастные шаблоны для определения минеральной плотности кости по данным конусно-лучевой и мультиспиральной компьютерной томографии利用锥形束和多层螺旋计算机断层扫描数据测定骨矿物质密度的X射线对比模板https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5410-1849HossainShazmim D.ХоссаинШазмим ДжаханHossainShazmim D.
Russian Federation

Assistant Lecturer

ассистент

Assistant Lecturer

shazmim@mail.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1694-46826193-1656PetraikinAlexey V.ПетряйкинАлексей ВладимировичPetraikinAlexey V.
Russian Federation

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Assistant Professor, Chief Researcher

д-р мед. наук, доцент, гл. науч. сотр.

alexeypetraikin@gmail.comhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3982-55121431-5936MuraevAlexandr A.МураевАлександр АлександровичMuraevAlexandr A.
Russian Federation

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

д-р мед. наук, профессор

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

muraev_aa@pfur.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4754-31017266-7722DanaevAslan B.ДанаевАслан БарадиновичDanaevAslan B.
Russian Federation

Assistant Lecturer

ассистент

Assistant Lecturer

aslandanaev111@mail.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2894-62552411-3959BurenchevDmitry V.БуренчевДмитрий ВладимировичBurenchevDmitry V.
Russian Federation

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Chief Researcher

д-р мед. наук, гл. науч. сотр.

BurenchevDV@zdrav.mos.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6352-67505941-5771DolgalevAlexander A.ДолгалевАлександр АлександровичDolgalevAlexander A.
Russian Federation

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Assistant Professor

д-р мед. наук, доцент

dolgalev@dolgalev.prohttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0208-52184458-5608VasilevYuriy A.ВасильевЮрий АлександровичVasilevYuriy A.
Russian Federation

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)

канд. мед. наук

VasilevYA1@zdrav.mos.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-5792-39121811-7595SharovaDarya E.ШароваДарья ЕвгеньевнаSharovaDarya E.
Russian Federation
SharovaDE@zdrav.mos.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-5458-01922607-2679IvanovSergey Yu.ИвановСергей ЮрьевичIvanovSergey Yu.
Russian Federation

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences

д-р мед. наук, профессор, чл.-корр. РАН

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences

syivanov@yandex.ruPeoples Friendship University of RussiaРоссийский университет дружбы народов имени Патриса ЛумумбыPeoples Friendship University of RussiaResearch and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine TechnologiesНаучно-практический клинический центр диагностики и телемедицинских технологийResearch and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine TechnologiesStavropol State Medical UniversityСтавропольский государственный медицинский университетStavropol State Medical UniversityThe First Sechenov Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)Первый Московский государственный медицинский университет имени И.М. Сеченова (Сеченовский Университет)The First Sechenov Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)3008202326092023432923052106202322082023Copyright ©; 2023, Eco-VectorCopyright ©; 2023, Эко-векторCopyright ©; 2023, Eco-Vector2023Eco-VectorЭко-векторEco-Vectorhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0https://jdigitaldiagnostics.com/DD/article/view/501771

BACKGROUND: Cone beam computed tomography is widely applied for diagnostics and planning various manipulations in the maxillofacial region, for example, dental implantation. Its advantages include high spatial resolution, low radiation exposure, and cost-effectiveness. However, it has a significant drawback: the inability to determine the density of the jaw bone in Hounsfield Units (HU).

AIMS: This study aimed to develop radiopaque templates with sets of X-ray density based on potassium hydrophosphate and beta-tricalcium phosphate, to study templates on various cone beam computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography devices, and to determine a cross-calibration algorithm for assessing the bone mineral density of the jaw in HU.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The bone mineral density template comprised microtubes (0.25 ml) with potassium hydrophosphate concentrations of 49.96, 99.98, 174.99, 349.99, and 549.98 mg/ml, and a suspension of beta-tricalcium phosphate with an equivalent concentration of potassium hydrophosphate 1,506 mg/ml, designed to simulate the types of bone density according to C. Mish. The study was carried out on two multidetector computed tomography and four cone beam computed tomography machines. Cross-calibration was referred on the “standard” multidetector computed tomography 1 mode 120 kV, 200 mA.

RESULTS: There was a significant scatter of the X-ray values (HU for multidetector computed tomography and GV for cone beam computed tomography) vs. bone mineral density, with varying slopes, bias, and curve shapes. After cross-calibration, good comparability corresponding to the multidetector computed tomography 1 mode was shown. The median of the differences before cross-calibration was 160 relative units (HU, GV), after decreased by 10 times and amounted to 16 rel. units (p=0.000). The mean difference for cone beam computed tomography was significantly higher (30 rel. units) than for multidetector computed tomography (8 rel. units) (p=0.024, Mann–Whitney U test).

CONCLUSION: The developed radiopaque template enables the standardization of densitometric indicators for cone beam computed tomography and various multidetector computed tomography modes. On average, the spread after cross-calibration is reduced by 10 times, which makes it possible to classify bone tissue in HU according to C. Mish.

Обоснование. Конусно-лучевая компьютерная томография позволяет проводить диагностику на этапе планирования различных манипуляций в челюстно-лицевой области, в частности при дентальной имплантации. Преимущества данного метода: высокое пространственное разрешение, низкая лучевая нагрузка, доступность исследований, однако имеется существенный недостаток ― отсутствие возможности определения плотности кости челюстей в единицах Хаунсфилда (HU).

Цели ― разработать набор рентгеноконтрастных шаблонов с заданной рентгеновской плотностью на основе гидрофосфата калия и β-трикальцийфосфата; изучить результаты сканирования шаблона на конусно-лучевом и мульти- срезовом компьютерных томографах; определить алгоритм кросс-калибровки для оценки минеральной плотности кости челюстей в HU и по классификации C. Misch.

Материалы и методы. В качестве рентгеноконтрастного шаблона использованы раствор гидрофосфата калия, суспензия β-трикальцийфосфата. В микропробирках шаблона объёмом 0,25 мл заданы следующие концентрации гидрофосфата калия: 49,96; 99,98; 174,99; 349,99; 549,98 мг/мл; суспензия β-трикальцийфосфата с эквивалентной концентрацией гидрофосфата калия 1506 мг/мл. Шаблоны моделируют типы плотности костной ткани по C. Misch. Исследование шаблонов проводилось на 2 мультисрезовых и 4 конусно-лучевых компьютерных томографах.

Результаты. В ходе работы проанализированы зависимости Gray Value (GV) для конусно-лучевых и HU для мультисрезовых компьютерных томографов от заданных значений минеральной плотности кости. Отмечается существенный разброс измеренных величин. Различаются углы наклона зависимостей и формы кривых. После кросс-калибровки показана хорошая сопоставимость пересчитанных значений относительно режима исследуемого мультисрезового компьютерного томографа.

Заключение. Разработанный рентеноконтрастный шаблон позволяет стандартизировать денситометрические показатели для конусно-лучевых и различных мультисрезовых компьютерных томографов: в среднем разброс после кросс-калибровки снижается в 10 раз, что обеспечивает возможность классификации костной ткани в HU по С. Misch.

论证。锥形束计算机断层扫描（cone beam computed tomography，CBCT）允许在颌面部各种操作的规划阶段进行诊断，特别是在牙种植入方面。这种方法的优点是空间分辨率高、辐射量低、便于研究。然而，它也有一个明显的缺点：无法确定以亨氏（Hounsfield Unit，HU）单位的颌骨密度。CBCT中的X射线密度是以Gray Value（GV）单位确定的。

该研究的目的是根据磷酸氢二钾（DHP）和β-磷酸三钙（β-TCP）开发一套具有特定X射线密度的X射线对比模板，研究在CBCT和多层螺旋计算机断层扫描（MSCT）上扫描模板的结果，确定用于估算HU下颌骨矿物质密度的交叉校验算法，并根据C.Mish进行分类。

材料和方法。使用DHP溶液、β-TCP悬浮液作为X射线对比模板。模板的0.25ml微量试管中DHP的浓度分别为：49.96、99.98、174.99、349.99、549.98mg/ml，β-TCP悬浮液中DHP的等效浓度为1506mg/ml。这些模板根据C.Mish分类模拟了骨密度类型。这些模板检验是在2个MSCT和4个CBCT上进行的。在“标准”MSCT1模式120kV、200mA上进行了交叉校验；对所获得的依赖关系进行了线性和二次近似。

结果。在工作过程中，我们分析了CBCT的GV和MSCT的HU与IPC给定值的关系。我们发现了测量值存在显著差异。相关斜率角度和曲线形状各不相同。交叉校验后，与MSCT1模式相比，重新计算的数值具有良好的可比性。交叉校验前测量值的中位数差异为160个相对单 位（HU、GV），重新计算后显著减少了10倍，为16个相对单位（p=0,000），可靠显示了CBCT的平均差异（30个相对单位）大于MSCT的平均差异（8个相对单位），p=0,024；采用曼-惠特尼U检验进行了比较。

结论。我们开发的X射线对比模板允许使CBCT和不同MSCT模式的密度测定指数标准化，交叉校验后的分散平均减少了10倍，这提供根据C.Mish对HU中的骨组织进行分类的可能性。.

关键词：锥形束计算机断层扫描；多层螺旋计算机断层扫描；交叉校验；骨矿物质密度；X射线密度；密度测定；牙种植入。

cone beam computed tomographymultidetector computed tomographycross-calibrationbone mineral densityX-ray densitydensitometrydental implantationконусно-лучевая компьютерная томографиямультиспиральная компьютерная томографиякросс-калибровкаминеральная плотность костирентгеновская плотностьденситометрияимплантация зубов锥形束计算机断层扫描多层螺旋计算机断层扫描交叉校验骨矿物质密度X射线密度密度测定牙种植入This article was prepared by the authors as part of the research and development work (EGISU number: 123031400007-7) in accordance with the Program of the Moscow Department of Health for 2023-2025Данная статья подготовлена в рамках НИОКР «Разработка и создание аппаратно-программного комплекса для оппортунистического скрининга остеопороза» (№ ЕГИСУ: 123031400007-7)This article was prepared by the authors as part of the research and development work (EGISU number: 123031400007-7) in accordance with the Program of the Moscow Department of Health for 2023-2025Hounsfield GN. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography). Description of system. Br J Radiol. 1973;46(552): 1016–1022. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-46-552-1016Hounsfield G.N. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography). Description of system // Br J Radiol. 1973. Vol. 46, N 552. P. 1016–1022. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-46-552-1016Hounsfield GN. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography). Description of system. Br J Radiol. 1973;46(552): 1016–1022. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-46-552-1016Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: A systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Suppl):55–77. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.4Bornstein M.M., Scarfe W.C., Vaughn V.M., Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: A systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks // Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014. Vol. 2014, N 29, Suppl. P. 55–77. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.4Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: A systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Suppl):55–77. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.4DenOtter TD, Schubert J. Hounsfield Unit. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022.DenOtter T.D., Schubert J. Hounsfield Unit. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; March 9, 2022.DenOtter TD, Schubert J. Hounsfield Unit. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022.Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: Clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16(1):26–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01067.xKim Y., Oh T.J., Misch C.E., Wang H.L. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: Clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale // Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005. Vol. 16, N 1. P. 26–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01067.xKim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: Clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16(1):26–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01067.xWoelber JP, Fleiner J, Rau J, et al. Accuracy and usefulness of CBCT in periodontology: A systematic review of the literature. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2018;38(2):289–297. doi: 10.11607/prd.2751Woelber J.P., Fleiner J., Rau J., et al. Accuracy and usefulness of CBCT in periodontology: A systematic review of the literature // Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2018. Vol. 38, N 2. P. 289–297. doi: 10.11607/prd.2751Woelber JP, Fleiner J, Rau J, et al. Accuracy and usefulness of CBCT in periodontology: A systematic review of the literature. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2018;38(2):289–297. doi: 10.11607/prd.2751Song D, Shujaat S, de Faria Vasconcelos K, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT versus intraoral imaging for assessment of peri-implant bone defects. BMC Med Imaging. 2021;21(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s12880-021-00557-9Song D., Shujaat S., de Faria Vasconcelos K., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT versus intraoral imaging for assessment of peri-implant bone defects // BMC Med Imaging. 2021. Vol. 21, N 1. P. 23. doi: 10.1186/s12880-021-00557-9Song D, Shujaat S, de Faria Vasconcelos K, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT versus intraoral imaging for assessment of peri-implant bone defects. BMC Med Imaging. 2021;21(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s12880-021-00557-9Savoldi F, Yon MJ, Kwok VM, et al. Accuracy of CBCT in the identification of mental, lingual, and retromolar foramina: A comparison with visual inspection of human dry mandibles. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2021;41(6):e277–e286. doi: 10.11607/prd.4770Savoldi F., Yon M.J., Kwok V.M., et al. Accuracy of CBCT in the identification of mental, lingual, and retromolar foramina: A comparison with visual inspection of human dry mandibles // Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2021. Vol. 4, N 6. P. e277–e286. doi: 10.11607/prd.4770Savoldi F, Yon MJ, Kwok VM, et al. Accuracy of CBCT in the identification of mental, lingual, and retromolar foramina: A comparison with visual inspection of human dry mandibles. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2021;41(6):e277–e286. doi: 10.11607/prd.4770Levi C, Gray JE, McCullough EC, Hattery RR. The unreliability of CT numbers as absolute values. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1982;139(3): 443–447. doi: 10.2214/ajr.139.3.443Levi C., Gray J.E., McCullough E.C., Hattery R.R. The unreliability of CT numbers as absolute values // AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1982. Vol. 139, N 3. P. 443–447. doi: 10.2214/ajr.139.3.443Levi C, Gray JE, McCullough EC, Hattery RR. The unreliability of CT numbers as absolute values. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1982;139(3): 443–447. doi: 10.2214/ajr.139.3.443Petraikin AV, Skripnikova IA. Quantitative computed tomography, modern data. Review. Medical Imaging. 2021;25(4):134–146. (In Russ). doi: 10.24835/1607-0763-1049Петряйкин А.В., Скрипникова И.А. Количественная компьютерная томография, современные данные. Обзор // Медицинская визуализация. 2021. Т. 25, № 4. С. 134–146. doi: 10.24835/1607-0763-1049Petraikin AV, Skripnikova IA. Quantitative computed tomography, modern data. Review. Medical Imaging. 2021;25(4):134–146. (In Russ). doi: 10.24835/1607-0763-1049Ivanov DV, Kirillova IV, Kossovich LY, et al. Influence of convolution kernel and beam-hardening effect on the assessment of trabecular bonemineral density using quantitative computed tomography. News Saratov University. 2020;20(2):205–219. (In Russ). doi: 10.18500/1816-9791-2020-20-2-205-219Иванов Д.В., Кириллова И.В., Коссович Л.Ю., и др. Влияние конволюционных ядер и эффекта «упрочнения луча» на оценку минеральной плотности губчатой костной ткани с использованием количественной компьютерной томографии // Известия Саратовского университета. 2020. Т. 20, № 2. С. 205–219. doi: 10.18500/1816-9791-2020-20-2-205-219Ivanov DV, Kirillova IV, Kossovich LY, et al. Influence of convolution kernel and beam-hardening effect on the assessment of trabecular bonemineral density using quantitative computed tomography. News Saratov University. 2020;20(2):205–219. (In Russ). doi: 10.18500/1816-9791-2020-20-2-205-219Petraikin AV, Smorchkova AK, Kudryavtsev ND, et al. Comparison of two asynchronous QCT methods. Medical Imaging. 2020;24(4): 108–118. (In Russ). doi: 10.24835/1607-0763-2020-4-108-118Петряйкин А.В., Сморчкова А.К., Кудрявцев Н.Д., и др. Сравнение двух методик асинхронной КТ-денситометрии // Медицинская визуализация. 2020. T. 24, № 4. С. 108–118. doi: 10.24835/1607-0763-2020-4-108-118Petraikin AV, Smorchkova AK, Kudryavtsev ND, et al. Comparison of two asynchronous QCT methods. Medical Imaging. 2020;24(4): 108–118. (In Russ). doi: 10.24835/1607-0763-2020-4-108-118Witt RM, Cameron JR. Bone Standards. USAEC Progress Report No. COO-1422-42 US Atomic Energy Comission, Madison, Wisconsin; 1969.Witt R.M., Cameron J.R. Bone Standards. USAEC Progress Report COO-1422-42, US Atomic Energy Comission, Madison, Wisconsin, 1969.Witt RM, Cameron JR. Bone Standards. USAEC Progress Report No. COO-1422-42 US Atomic Energy Comission, Madison, Wisconsin; 1969.Cann CE, Genant HK. Precise measurement of vertebral mineral content using computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1980;4(4):493–500. doi: 10.1097/00004728-198008000-00018Cann C.E., Genant H.K. Precise measurement of vertebral mineral content using computed tomography // J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1980. Vol. 4, N 4. P. 493–500. doi: 10.1097/00004728-198008000-00018Cann CE, Genant HK. Precise measurement of vertebral mineral content using computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1980;4(4):493–500. doi: 10.1097/00004728-198008000-00018Hubbell JH. Photon cross sections, attenuation coefficients, and energy absorption coefficients from 10 keV to 100 GeV. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD; 1969. doi: 10.6028/NBS.NSRDS.29Hubbell J.H. Photon cross sections, attenuation coefficients, and energy absorption coefficients from 10 keV to 100 GeV. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1969. doi: 10.6028/NBS.NSRDS.29Hubbell JH. Photon cross sections, attenuation coefficients, and energy absorption coefficients from 10 keV to 100 GeV. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD; 1969. doi: 10.6028/NBS.NSRDS.29International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Tissue Substitutes in Radiation Dosimetry and Measurement. ICRU Report.1989;(44):1–189.International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Tissue Substitutes in Radiation Dosimetry and Measurement // ICRU Report. 1989. N 44. P. 1–189.International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Tissue Substitutes in Radiation Dosimetry and Measurement. ICRU Report.1989;(44):1–189.Nikolaev AE, Korkunova OA, Blokhin IA, et al. Calcification density oncomputed tomography depending on scanning parameters: Phantom study. (In Russ). Med Imaging. 2020;24(4):119–132. doi: 10.24835/1607-0763-2020-4-119-132Николаев А.Е., Коркунова О.А., Блохин И.А., и др. Плотность кальцификации при компьютерной томографии в зависимости от параметров сканирования: фантомное исследование // Медицинская визуализация. 2020. T. 24, № 4. С. 119–132. doi: 10.24835/1607-0763-2020-4-119-132Nikolaev AE, Korkunova OA, Blokhin IA, et al. Calcification density oncomputed tomography depending on scanning parameters: Phantom study. (In Russ). Med Imaging. 2020;24(4):119–132. doi: 10.24835/1607-0763-2020-4-119-132Gaur A, Dhillon M, Puri N, et al. Questionable accuracy of CBCT in determining bone density: A comparative CBCT-CT in vitro study. Dent Med Probl. 2022;59(3):413–419. doi: 10.17219/dmp/143504Gaur A., Dhillon M., Puri N., et al. Questionable accuracy of CBCT in determining bone density: A comparative CBCT-CT in vitro study // Dent Med Probl. 2022. Vol. 59, N 3. P. 413–419. doi: 10.17219/dmp/143504Gaur A, Dhillon M, Puri N, et al. Questionable accuracy of CBCT in determining bone density: A comparative CBCT-CT in vitro study. Dent Med Probl. 2022;59(3):413–419. doi: 10.17219/dmp/143504Martinez C, de Molina C, Desco M, Abella M. Optimization of a calibration phantom for quantitative radiography. Med Phys. 2021;48(3):1039–1053. doi: 10.1002/mp.14638Martinez C., de Molina C., Desco M., Abella M. Optimization of a calibration phantom for quantitative radiography // Med Phys. 2021. Vol. 48, N 3. P. 1039–1053. doi: 10.1002/mp.14638Martinez C, de Molina C, Desco M, Abella M. Optimization of a calibration phantom for quantitative radiography. Med Phys. 2021;48(3):1039–1053. doi: 10.1002/mp.14638Hu Z, Wang T, Pan X, et al. Comparison of diagnosis of cracked tooth using contrast-enhanced CBCT and micro-CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2021;50(7):20210003. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20210003Hu Z., Wang T., Pan X., et al. Comparison of diagnosis of cracked tooth using contrast-enhanced CBCT and micro-CT // Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2021. Vol. 50, N 7. P. 20210003. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20210003Hu Z, Wang T, Pan X, et al. Comparison of diagnosis of cracked tooth using contrast-enhanced CBCT and micro-CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2021;50(7):20210003. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20210003Lehmann L, Alvarez R, Macovski A, et al. Generalized image combinations in dual KVP digital radiography. Med Phys. 1981;8(5):659–667. doi: 10.1118/1.595025Lehmann L., Alvarez R., Macovski A., et al. Generalized image combinations in dual KVP digital radiography // Med Phys. 1981. Vol. 8, N 5. P. 659–667. doi: 10.1118/1.595025Lehmann L, Alvarez R, Macovski A, et al. Generalized image combinations in dual KVP digital radiography. Med Phys. 1981;8(5):659–667. doi: 10.1118/1.595025Chuang KS, Huang H. Comparison of four dual energy image decomposition methods. Physics Med Biol. 1988;33(4):455. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/33/4/005Chuang K.S., Huang H. Comparison of four dual energy image decomposition methods // Physics Med Biol. 1988. Vol. 33, N 4. P. 455. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/33/4/005Chuang KS, Huang H. Comparison of four dual energy image decomposition methods. Physics Med Biol. 1988;33(4):455. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/33/4/005Gingold EL, Hasegawa BH. Systematic bias in basis material decomposition applied to quantitative dual-energy X-ray imaging. Med Phys. 1992;19(1):25–33. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/33/4/005Gingold E.L., Hasegawa B.H. Systematic bias in basis material decomposition applied to quantitative dual-energy X-ray imaging // Med Phys. 1992. Vol. 9, N 1. P. 25–33. doi: 10.1118/1.596889Gingold EL, Hasegawa BH. Systematic bias in basis material decomposition applied to quantitative dual-energy X-ray imaging. Med Phys. 1992;19(1):25–33. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/33/4/005Cardinal HN, Fenster A. An accurate method for direct dual-energy calibration and decomposition. Med Phys. 1990;17(3):327–341. doi: 10.1118/1.596512Cardinal H.N., Fenster A. An accurate method for direct dual-energy calibration and decomposition // Med Phys. 1990. Vol. 17, N 3. P. 327–341. doi: 10.1118/1.596512Cardinal HN, Fenster A. An accurate method for direct dual-energy calibration and decomposition. Med Phys. 1990;17(3):327–341. doi: 10.1118/1.596512Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, et al. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0523-5Jacobs R., Salmon B., Codari M., et al. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: Recommendations for clinical use // BMC Oral Health. 2018. Vol. 18, N 1. P. 88. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0523-5Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, et al. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0523-5Dolgalev AA, Danaev AB, Yusupov RD, et al. Objective assessment of measurement error in significant cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. Med Alphabet. 2022;(7):65–68. (In Russ). doi: 10.33667/2078-5631-2022-7-65-68Долгалев А.А., Данаев А.Б., Юсупов Р.Д., и др. Объективная оценка погрешности показателей плотности при проведении конусно-лучевой компьютерной томографии в стоматологической практике // Медицинский алфавит. 2022. № 7. С. 65–68. doi: 10.33667/2078-5631-2022-7-65-68Dolgalev AA, Danaev AB, Yusupov RD, et al. Objective assessment of measurement error in significant cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. Med Alphabet. 2022;(7):65–68. (In Russ). doi: 10.33667/2078-5631-2022-7-65-68Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Di Carlo S, et al. The accuracy of CBCT in measuring jaws bone density. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012;16(10):1425–1429.Cassetta M., Stefanelli L.V., Di Carlo S., et al. The accuracy of CBCT in measuring jaws bone density // Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012. Vol. 16, N 10. P. 1425–1429.Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Di Carlo S, et al. The accuracy of CBCT in measuring jaws bone density. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012;16(10):1425–1429.Harvey S, Patel S. Guidelines and template for reporting on CBCT scans. Br Dent J. 2020;228(1):15–18. doi: 10.1038/s41415-019-1115-8Harvey S., Patel S. Guidelines and template for reporting on CBCT scans // Br Dent J. 2020. Vol. 228, N 1. P. 15–18. doi: 10.1038/s41415-019-1115-8Harvey S, Patel S. Guidelines and template for reporting on CBCT scans. Br Dent J. 2020;228(1):15–18. doi: 10.1038/s41415-019-1115-8Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Pacifici A, et al. How accurate is CBCT in measuring bone density? A comparative CBCT-CT in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(4):471–478. doi: 10.1111/cid.12027Cassetta M., Stefanelli L.V., Pacifici A., et al. How accurate is CBCT in measuring bone density? A comparative CBCT-CT in vitro study // Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014. Vol. 16, N 4. P. 471–478. doi: 10.1111/cid.12027Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Pacifici A, et al. How accurate is CBCT in measuring bone density? A comparative CBCT-CT in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(4):471–478. doi: 10.1111/cid.12027Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, et al. Bone quality evaluation at dental implant site using multislice CT, micro-CT, and cone beam CT. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(1):e1–7. doi: 10.1111/clr.12315Parsa A., Ibrahim N., Hassan B., et al. Bone quality evaluation at dental implant site using multislice CT, micro-CT, and cone beam CT // Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015. Vol. 26, N 1. P. e1–7. doi: 10.1111/clr.12315Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, et al. Bone quality evaluation at dental implant site using multislice CT, micro-CT, and cone beam CT. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(1):e1–7. doi: 10.1111/clr.12315Van Dessel J, Nicolielo LF, Huang Y, 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):95–105.Van Dessel J., Nicolielo L.F., Huang Y., 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. Vol. 10, N 1. P. 95–105.Van Dessel J, Nicolielo LF, Huang Y, 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):95–105.Dillenseger JP, Matern JF, Gros CI, et al. MSCT versus CBCT: Evaluation of high-resolution acquisition modes for dento-maxillary and skull-base imaging. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(2):505–515. doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3439-8Dillenseger J.P., Matern J.F., Gros C.I., et al. MSCT versus CBCT: Evaluation of high-resolution acquisition modes for dento-maxillary and skull-base imaging // Eur Radiol. 2015. Vol. 25, N 2. P. 505–515. doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3439-8Dillenseger JP, Matern JF, Gros CI, et al. MSCT versus CBCT: Evaluation of high-resolution acquisition modes for dento-maxillary and skull-base imaging. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(2):505–515. doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3439-8Schegerer AA, Lechel U, Ritter M, et al. Dose and image quality of cone-beam computed tomography as compared with conventional multislice computed tomography in abdominal imaging. Invest Radiol. 2014;49(10):675–684. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000069Schegerer A.A., Lechel U., Ritter M., et al. Dose and image quality of cone-beam computed tomography as compared with conventional multislice computed tomography in abdominal imaging // Invest Radiol. 2014. Vol. 49, N 10. P. 675–684. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000069Schegerer AA, Lechel U, Ritter M, et al. Dose and image quality of cone-beam computed tomography as compared with conventional multislice computed tomography in abdominal imaging. Invest Radiol. 2014;49(10):675–684. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000069Veldhoen S, Schöllchen M, Hanken H, et al. Performance of cone-beam computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography in diagnostic imaging of the midface: A comparative study on Phantom and cadaver head scans. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(2):790–800. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4387-2Veldhoen S., Schöllchen M., Hanken H., et al. Performance of cone-beam computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography in diagnostic imaging of the midface: A comparative study on Phantom and cadaver head scans // Eur Radiol. 2017. Vol. 27, N 2. P. 790–800. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4387-2Veldhoen S, Schöllchen M, Hanken H, et al. Performance of cone-beam computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography in diagnostic imaging of the midface: A comparative study on Phantom and cadaver head scans. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(2):790–800. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4387-2Grunz JP, Weng AM, Gietzen CH, et al. Evaluation of ultra-high-resolution cone-beam CT prototype of twin robotic radiography system for cadaveric wrist imaging. Acad Radiol. 202;28(10):e314–e322. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.06.018Grunz J.P., Weng A.M., Gietzen C.H., et al. Evaluation of ultra-high-resolution cone-beam CT prototype of twin robotic radiography system for cadaveric wrist imaging // Acad Radiol. 2021. Vol. 28, N 10. P. e314–e322. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.06.018Grunz JP, Weng AM, Gietzen CH, et al. Evaluation of ultra-high-resolution cone-beam CT prototype of twin robotic radiography system for cadaveric wrist imaging. Acad Radiol. 202;28(10):e314–e322. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.06.018Medelnik J, Hertrich K, Steinhäuser-Andresen S, et al. Accuracy of anatomical landmark identification using different CBCT- and MSCT-based 3D images: An in vitro study. J Orofac Orthop. 2011;72(4):261–278. doi: 10.1007/s00056-011-0032-5Medelnik J., Hertrich K., Steinhäuser-Andresen S., et al. Accuracy of anatomical landmark identification using different CBCT- and MSCT-based 3D images: An in vitro study // J Orofac Orthop. 2011. Vol. 72, N 4. P. 261–278. doi: 10.1007/s00056-011-0032-5Medelnik J, Hertrich K, Steinhäuser-Andresen S, et al. Accuracy of anatomical landmark identification using different CBCT- and MSCT-based 3D images: An in vitro study. J Orofac Orthop. 2011;72(4):261–278. doi: 10.1007/s00056-011-0032-5Elshenawy H, Aly W, Salah N, et al. Influence of small, midi, medium and large fields of view on accuracy of linear measurements in CBCT imaging: Diagnostic accuracy study. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019;7(6):1037–1041. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.232Elshenawy H., Aly W., Salah N., et al. Influence of small, midi, medium and large fields of view on accuracy of linear measurements in CBCT imaging: Diagnostic accuracy study // Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019. Vol. 7, N 6. P. 1037–1041. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.232Elshenawy H, Aly W, Salah N, et al. Influence of small, midi, medium and large fields of view on accuracy of linear measurements in CBCT imaging: Diagnostic accuracy study. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019;7(6):1037–1041. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.232