Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model.

Compared with multirow detector CT (MDCT), specimen (ex vivo) micro-CT (μCT) has a significantly higher (~ 30 x) spatial resolution and is considered the gold standard for assessing bone above the cellular level. However, it is expensive and time-consuming, and when applied in vivo, the radiation do...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Oliver Bissinger, Jan S Kirschke, Florian Andreas Probst, Martin Stauber, Klaus-Dietrich Wolff, Bernhard Haller, Carolin Götz, Christian Plank, Andreas Kolk
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2016-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5120815?pdf=render
id doaj-1dc8e5ae8a5d40a98903671da2d3cce6
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1dc8e5ae8a5d40a98903671da2d3cce62020-11-25T01:01:51ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032016-01-011111e016654010.1371/journal.pone.0166540Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model.Oliver BissingerJan S KirschkeFlorian Andreas ProbstMartin StauberKlaus-Dietrich WolffBernhard HallerCarolin GötzChristian PlankAndreas KolkCompared with multirow detector CT (MDCT), specimen (ex vivo) micro-CT (μCT) has a significantly higher (~ 30 x) spatial resolution and is considered the gold standard for assessing bone above the cellular level. However, it is expensive and time-consuming, and when applied in vivo, the radiation dose accumulates considerably. The aim of this study was to examine whether the lower resolution of the widely used MDCT is sufficient to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate bone regeneration in rats.Forty critical-size defects (5mm) were placed in the mandibular angle of rats and covered with coated bioactive titanium implants to promote bone healing. Five time points were selected (7, 14, 28, 56 and 112 days). μCT and MDCT were used to evaluate the defect region to determine the bone volume (BV), tissue mineral density (TMD) and bone mineral content (BMC).MDCT constantly achieved higher BV values than μCT (10.73±7.84 mm3 vs. 6.62±4.96 mm3, p<0.0001) and consistently lower TMD values (547.68±163.83 mm3 vs. 876.18±121.21 mm3, p<0.0001). No relevant difference was obtained for BMC (6.48±5.71 mm3 vs. 6.15±5.21 mm3, p = 0.40). BV and BMC showed very strong correlations between both methods, whereas TMD was only moderately correlated (r = 0.87, r = 0.90, r = 0.68, p < 0.0001).Due to partial volume effects, MDCT overestimated BV and underestimated TMD but accurately determined BMC, even in small volumes, compared with μCT. Therefore, if bone quantity is a sufficient end point, a considerable number of animals and costs can be saved, and compared with in vivo μCT, the required dose of radiation can be reduced.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5120815?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Oliver Bissinger
Jan S Kirschke
Florian Andreas Probst
Martin Stauber
Klaus-Dietrich Wolff
Bernhard Haller
Carolin Götz
Christian Plank
Andreas Kolk
spellingShingle Oliver Bissinger
Jan S Kirschke
Florian Andreas Probst
Martin Stauber
Klaus-Dietrich Wolff
Bernhard Haller
Carolin Götz
Christian Plank
Andreas Kolk
Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Oliver Bissinger
Jan S Kirschke
Florian Andreas Probst
Martin Stauber
Klaus-Dietrich Wolff
Bernhard Haller
Carolin Götz
Christian Plank
Andreas Kolk
author_sort Oliver Bissinger
title Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model.
title_short Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model.
title_full Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model.
title_fullStr Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model.
title_full_unstemmed Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model.
title_sort micro-ct vs. whole body multirow detector ct for analysing bone regeneration in an animal model.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2016-01-01
description Compared with multirow detector CT (MDCT), specimen (ex vivo) micro-CT (μCT) has a significantly higher (~ 30 x) spatial resolution and is considered the gold standard for assessing bone above the cellular level. However, it is expensive and time-consuming, and when applied in vivo, the radiation dose accumulates considerably. The aim of this study was to examine whether the lower resolution of the widely used MDCT is sufficient to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate bone regeneration in rats.Forty critical-size defects (5mm) were placed in the mandibular angle of rats and covered with coated bioactive titanium implants to promote bone healing. Five time points were selected (7, 14, 28, 56 and 112 days). μCT and MDCT were used to evaluate the defect region to determine the bone volume (BV), tissue mineral density (TMD) and bone mineral content (BMC).MDCT constantly achieved higher BV values than μCT (10.73±7.84 mm3 vs. 6.62±4.96 mm3, p<0.0001) and consistently lower TMD values (547.68±163.83 mm3 vs. 876.18±121.21 mm3, p<0.0001). No relevant difference was obtained for BMC (6.48±5.71 mm3 vs. 6.15±5.21 mm3, p = 0.40). BV and BMC showed very strong correlations between both methods, whereas TMD was only moderately correlated (r = 0.87, r = 0.90, r = 0.68, p < 0.0001).Due to partial volume effects, MDCT overestimated BV and underestimated TMD but accurately determined BMC, even in small volumes, compared with μCT. Therefore, if bone quantity is a sufficient end point, a considerable number of animals and costs can be saved, and compared with in vivo μCT, the required dose of radiation can be reduced.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5120815?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT oliverbissinger microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
AT janskirschke microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
AT florianandreasprobst microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
AT martinstauber microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
AT klausdietrichwolff microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
AT bernhardhaller microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
AT carolingotz microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
AT christianplank microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
AT andreaskolk microctvswholebodymultirowdetectorctforanalysingboneregenerationinananimalmodel
_version_ 1725207110525911040