Diagnostic Performance of Conebeam CT Pixel Values in Active Fenestral Otosclerosis

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Kawase S,
   3. Naganawa S,
   4. Sone M, et al

   . Relationship between CT densitometry with a slice thickness of 0.5 mm and audiometry in otosclerosis. Eur Radiol 2006;16:1367–73 doi:10.1007/s00330-005-0128-7 pmid:16532357

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Grayeli AB,
   3. Yrieix CS,
   4. Imauchi Y, et al

   . Temporal bone density measurements using CT in otosclerosis. Acta Otolaryngol 2004;124:1136–40 doi:10.1080/00016480410018188 pmid:15768805

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Zhu M,
   3. Sha Y,
   4. Zhuang P, et al

   . Relationship between high-resolution computed tomography densitometry and audiometry in otosclerosis. Auris Nasus Larynx 2010;37:669–75 doi:10.1016/j.anl.2010.03.002 pmid:20399580

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Kutlar G,
   3. Koyuncu M,
   4. Elmali M, et al

   . Are computed tomography and densitometric measurements useful in otosclerosis with mixed hearing loss? A retrospective clinical study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;271:2421–25 doi:10.1007/s00405-013-2729-0 pmid:24096812

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Viza Puiggrós I,
   3. Granell Moreno E,
   4. Calvo Navarro C, et al

   . Diagnostic utility of labyrinth capsule bone density in the diagnosis of otosclerosis with high resolution tomography. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2020;71:242–48 doi:10.1016/j.otorri.2019.09.004 pmid:32156439

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Molteni R

   . Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013;116:105–19 doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2013.04.013 pmid:23768878

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Liu Y,
   3. Bäuerle T,
   4. Pan L, et al

   . Calibration of cone beam CT using relative attenuation ratio for quantitative assessment of bone density: a small animal study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2013;8:733–39 doi:10.1007/s11548-012-0803-5 pmid:23225074

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Juliano AF,
   3. Ginat DT,
   4. Moonis G

   . Imaging review of the temporal bone, Part II: traumatic, postoperative, and noninflammatory nonneoplastic conditions. Radiology 2015;276:655–72 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015140800 pmid:26302389

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Puac P,
   3. Rodríguez A,
   4. Lin HC, et al

   . Cavitary plaques in otospongiosis: CT findings and clinical implications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:1135–39 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5613 pmid:29622557

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    2. Yagi C,
    3. Morita Y,
    4. Takahashi K, et al

    . Otosclerosis: anatomical distribution of otosclerotic loci analyzed by high-resolution computed tomography. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019;276:1335–40 doi:10.1007/s00405-019-05385-w pmid:30887165

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Min JY,
    3. Chung WH,
    4. Lee WY, et al

    . Otosclerosis: incidence of positive findings on temporal bone computed tomography (TBCT) and audiometric correlation in Korean patients. Auris Nasus Larynx 2010;37:23–28 doi:10.1016/j.anl.2009.04.010 pmid:19539438

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Merchant S,
    2. Nadol J, Jr.

    2. McKenna M,
    3. Merchant S

    . Disorders of bone. In: Merchant S, Nadol J, Jr., eds. Schuknecht’s Pathology of the Ear. 3rd ed. People’s Medical; 2010:720–24
13. 13.↵
    2. Lan MY,
    3. Shiao JY,
    4. Ho CY, et al

    . Measurements of normal inner ear on computed tomography in children with congenital sensorineural hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009;266:1361–64 doi:10.1007/s00405-009-0923-x pmid:19238416

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Quesnel AM,
    3. Ishai R,
    4. McKenna MJ

    . Otosclerosis: temporal bone pathology. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2018;51:291–303 doi:10.1016/j.otc.2017.11.001 pmid:29397947

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Sanghan N,
    3. Chansakul T,
    4. Kozin ED, et al

    . Retrospective review of otic capsule contour and thickness in patients with otosclerosis and individuals with normal hearing on CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:2350–55 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5892 pmid:30467217

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    2. Miracle AC,
    3. Mukherji SK

    . Conebeam CT of the head and neck, Part 1: physical principles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1088–95 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1653 pmid:19439484

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Miracle AC,
    3. Mukherji SK

    . Conebeam CT of the head and neck, Part 2: clinical applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1285–92 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1654 pmid:19461061

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    2. Pauwels R,
    3. Nackaerts O,
    4. Bellaiche N, et al

    . SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. Variability of dental cone beam CT grey values for density estimations. Br J Radiol 2013;86:20120135 doi:10.1259/bjr.20120135 pmid:23255537

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Lagravère MO,
    3. Carey J,
    4. Ben-Zvi M, et al

    . Effect of object location on the density measurement and Hounsfield conversion in a NewTom 3G cone beam computed tomography unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008;37:305–08 doi:10.1259/dmfr/65993482 pmid:18757714

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    2. Naitoh M,
    3. Hirukawa A,
    4. Katsumata A, et al

    . Evaluation of voxel values in mandibular cancellous bone: relationship between cone-beam computed tomography and multislice helical computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:503–06 doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01672.x pmid:19250241

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Mah P,
    3. Reeves TE,
    4. McDavid WD

    . Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010;39:323–35 doi:10.1259/dmfr/19603304 pmid:20729181

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    2. Nomura Y,
    3. Watanabe H,
    4. Honda E, et al

    . Reliability of voxel values from cone-beam computed tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral density. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:558–62 doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01896.x pmid:20443807

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Pauwels R,
    3. Stamatakis H,
    4. Manousaridis G, et al

    . SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. Development and applicability of a quality control phantom for dental cone-beam CT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2011;12:3478 doi:10.1120/jacmp.v12i4.3478 pmid:22089004

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Parsa A,
    3. Ibrahim N,
    4. Hassan B, et al

    . Reliability of voxel gray values in cone beam computed tomography for preoperative implant planning assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1438–42 pmid:23189294

    PubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Valiyaparambil JV,
    3. Yamany I,
    4. Ortiz D, et al

    . Bone quality evaluation: comparison of cone beam computed tomography and subjective surgical assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1271–77 pmid:23057044

    PubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Oliveira ML,
    3. Tosoni GM,
    4. Lindsey DH, et al

    . Influence of anatomical location on CT numbers in cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013;115:558–64 doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2013.01.021 pmid:23522649

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Oliveira ML,
    3. Tosoni GM,
    4. Lindsey DH, et al

    . Assessment of CT numbers in limited and medium field-of-view scans taken using Accuitomo 170 and Veraviewepocs 3De cone-beam computed tomography scanners. Imaging Sci Dent 2014;44:279–85 doi:10.5624/isd.2014.44.4.279 pmid:25473635

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Lee TC,
    3. Aviv RI,
    4. Chen JM, et al

    . CT grading of otosclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1435–39 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1558 pmid:19321627

    Abstract/FREE Full Text