Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: Validation of image processing techniques such as endodontic segmentations in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is a challenging issue because of the lack of ground truth in in vivo experiments. The purpose of our study was to design an artificial surrounding tissues phantom able to provide CBCT image quality of real extracted teeth, similar to in vivo conditions. Note that these extracted teeth could be previously scanned using micro computed tomography (μCT) to access true quantitative measurements of the root canal anatomy. Different design settings are assessed in our study by comparison to in vivo images, in terms of the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) obtained beten different anatomical structures. Concerning the root canal and the dentine, the best design setup allod our phantom to provide a CNR difference of only 3% compared to clinical cases.
['Jérôme Michetti', 'Adrian Basarab', 'Michel Tran', 'Franck Diemer', 'Denis Kouame']
I am writing a research paper on a idea Cone-Beam Computed Tomography contrast validation of an artificial periodontal phantom for use in endodontics.
[{"from": "human", "value": "I am writing a research paper on a idea Cone-Beam Computed Tomography contrast validation of an artificial periodontal phantom for use in endodontics."}, {"from": "gpt", "value": "Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: Validation of image processing techniques such as endodontic segmentations in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is a challenging issue because of the lack of ground truth in in vivo experiments. The purpose of our study was to design an artificial surrounding tissues phantom able to provide CBCT image quality of real extracted teeth, similar to in vivo conditions. Note that these extracted teeth could be previously scanned using micro computed tomography (\u03bcCT) to access true quantitative measurements of the root canal anatomy. Different design settings are assessed in our study by comparison to in vivo images, in terms of the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) obtained beten different anatomical structures. Concerning the root canal and the dentine, the best design setup allod our phantom to provide a CNR difference of only 3% compared to clinical cases."}]