International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research
ISSN (Print): 2333-1135 ISSN (Online): 2333-1259 Website: Editor-in-chief: Marcos Roberto Tovani Palone
Open Access
Journal Browser
International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research. 2018, 6(3), 66-73
DOI: 10.12691/ijdsr-6-3-3
Open AccessArticle

The Use of Relative Voxel Grey Values in CBCT to Evaluate Radiological Bone Density in the Mandible

Krzysztof Andruch1 and Monika Cecotka1,

1Department of Dental Prosthetic, Medical University of Lodz, Poland

Pub. Date: April 25, 2018

Cite this paper:
Krzysztof Andruch and Monika Cecotka. The Use of Relative Voxel Grey Values in CBCT to Evaluate Radiological Bone Density in the Mandible. International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research. 2018; 6(3):66-73. doi: 10.12691/ijdsr-6-3-3


Quality of CBCT images allows for detailed analysis of bone but tissue mineral density can be evaluated with some limitations. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical possibility to measure the mandible relative radiological bone density for cortical and trabecular tissue. The CBCT scans were taken with the use of PaxReve3D machine and analyzed by Ez3DPlus software. A modified scale was applied and the ratio of radiological density to measured highest value (HV) was calculated. The relative grey values (GV) of alveolar bone in mandible were measured. Basal cortical reference values (BCRV) of bone density were applied and compared with HVs. Statistically significant very strong positive correlation was observed between relative and rescaled GV for all available data r = 0.901; p < 0.0001. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between BCRVs and HVs was found as positive and strong r = 0.640 with R2 = 0.409. With the limitations of the study the use of relative grey scale values to evaluate radiological density of mandible is promising and easy to apply method.

cone beam tomography bone density alveolar bone relative grey values

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit


Figure of 9


[1]  Molteni R. Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hunsfield units for cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathology Oral Radiology 2013; 116: 105-19.
[2]  Katsumata A, Hirukawa A, Okumura S, et al. Relationship between density variability and imaging volume size in cone-beam computerized tomographic scanning of the maxillary region: an in vitro study. Oral Surgeon Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontics 2009; 107: 420-5.
[3]  Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 265-73.
[4]  Bouxsein ML, Boyd SK, Christiansen BA, Guldberg RE, Jepsen KJ, Müller R, Guidelines for assessment of bone microstructure in rodents using micro-computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res. 25(7): 1468-86. 2010.
[5]  Abel RL, Prime M, Jin A, Cobb JP, Bhattacharya R. 3D Imaging Bone Quality: Bench to Bedside. Hard Tissue 2013 Nov 10; 2(5): 42.
[6]  Kim DG, Huja SS, Lee HR, et al. Relationship of viscosity with contact hardness and modulus of bone matrix measured by nanoindentations, J Biomech Eng 2010; 132: 024502
[7]  Kim DG, Huja SS, Navalgund ggA, et al. Effect of estrogen deficiency on regional variation of a viscoelastic tissue property of bone. J Biomech 2013; 46: 110-5.
[8]  Isakson H, Nagao S, Markiewicz M, et al. Precision of nanoindentation protocols for measurement of viscoelastic its in cortical and trabecular bone. J Biomech 2010; 43: 2410-7.
[9]  Reeves TE, Mah P, McDavid WD. Deriving Hunsfield units using grey levels in cone beam CT: a clinical application. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 500-8.
[10]  Taylor TT, Gans SI, Jones EM, et al. Comparison of micro-CT and cone beam CT-based assessments for relative difference of grey level distribution in human mandible. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 25117764.
[11]  Andruch K, Płachta A: Evaluating maxilla bone quality through clinical investigation of voxel gray scale values from cone-beam computed tomography for dental use. Adv Clin Exp Med 2015, 24, 6, 1071-1077.
[12]  Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Reliability of voxel gray values in cone beam computed tomography for preoperative implant planning assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27: 1438-42.
[13]  Nomura Y, Watanabe H, Honda E, Kurabayashi T. 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.
[14]  Donnelly E. Methods for assessing bone quality: a review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 2128-38.
[15]  Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Bone quality evaluation at dental implant site using multislice CT, micro-CT, and cone beam CT. Clin Oral Implants Res Dec 2013.
[16]  Naitoh M, Hirukawa A, 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 2010; 21: 558-62.
[17]  Hernandez CJ, Keaveny TM. A biomechanical perspective on bone quality. Bone 2006; 39: 1173-81.