PURPOSE: This study was performed to investigate the intra- and inter-observer variability in linear measurements with axial images obtained by PreXion (PreXion Inc., San Mateo, USA) and i-CAT (Imaging Sciences International, Xoran Technologies Inc., Hatfield, USA) CBCT scanners, with different voxel sizes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cylindrical object made from nylon with radiopaque markers (phantom) was scanned by i-CAT and PreXion 3D devices. For each axial image, measurements were taken twice in the horizontal (distance A-B) and vertical (distance C-D) directions, randomly, with a one-week interval between measurements, by four oral radiologists with five years or more experience in the use of these measuring tools. RESULTS: All of the obtained linear measurements had lower values than those of the phantom. The statistical analysis showed high intra- and inter-observer reliability (p=0.297). Compared to the real measurements, the measurements obtained using the i-CAT device and PreXion tomography, on average, revealed absolute errors ranging from 0.22 to 0.59 mm and from 0.23 to 0.63 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that both scanners are accurate, although the linear measurements are underestimations, with no significant differences between the evaluators.
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography* ; Dimensional Measurement Accuracy ; Nylons ; Observer Variation ; Reproducibility of Results

Purpose: This study compared the accuracy of detection of incomplete vertical root fractures (VRFs) in filled and unfilled teeth on cone-beam computed tomography images with and without a metal artefact reduction (MAR) algorithm. Materials and Methods: Forty single-rooted maxillary premolars were selected and, after endodontic instru- mentation, were categorized as unfilled teeth without fractures, filled teeth without fractures, unfilled teeth with fractures, or filled teeth with fractures. Each VRF was artificially created and confirmed by operative microscopy.The teeth were randomly arranged, and images were acquired with and without the MAR algorithm. The images were evaluated with OnDemand software (Cybermed Inc., Seoul, Korea). After training, 2 blinded observers each assessed the images for the presence and absence of VRFs 2 times separated by a 1-week interval. P-values<0.05 were considered to indicate significance. Results: Of the 4 protocols, unfilled teeth analysed with the MAR algorithm had the highest accuracy of incomplete VRF diagnosis (0.65), while unfilled teeth reviewed without MAR were associated with the least accurate diagnosis (0.55). With MAR, an unfilled tooth with an incomplete VRF was 4 times more likely to be identified as having an incomplete VRF than an unfilled tooth without this condition, while without MAR, an unfilled tooth with an incomplete VRF was 2.28 times more likely to be identified as having an incomplete VRF than an unfilled tooth without this condition. Conclusion The use of the MAR algorithm increased the diagnostic accuracy in the detection of incomplete VRF onimages of unfilled teeth.