The validity of different display monitors in the assessment of dental implant site dimensions in cone beam computed tomography images

Abstract

Objective. To determine if the differing contrast resolution of various LCD monitors affects the reliability or accuracy of measurements of proposed implant sites. Materials and methods. Edentulous areas of human dry skulls were marked with radiopaque markers in order to standardize the plane of the transverse cross-sections of the ridges and path of measurements. The skulls were imaged by a CBCT device and the images stored in proprietary format on the workstation. The data sets were then transferred, with the proprietary reformatting software, to two different laptops using CDs. Transverse cross-sectional images of the ridges were reformatted on all three computers and ridge dimensions were recorded using the linear measurement tool of the proprietary software. Ridge dimensions were recorded directly from the three different monitors by two observers and compared to measurements recorded directly from the bone. The measurement errors and intra- and inter-examiner reliability were calculated for each monitor and compared with each other. Results. Intra- and inter-examiner reliability scores for the measurements recorded from all three devices were very high and ranged between 0.993–0.999. The mean of the absolute errors was 0.55 mm for the workstation, 0.61 mm for laptop 1 and 0.68 mm for laptop 2. The absolute errors were statistically significant for all three monitors (p-value < 0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference between the absolute errors obtained from the three monitors. Conclusions. No differences in the reliability or accuracy of measurements of implant site dimensions were obtained using color LCD monitors with different contrast resolution capabilities.

Key Words::

• CBCT
• computer terminals
• radiography
• dental
• digital
• reliability

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.