1. Shin H, Park M, Chae JM, Lee J, Lim HJ, Kim BC. Factors affecting forced eruption duration of impacted and labially displaced canines. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2019;156:808-17.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.12.025

PMid:31784014 

2. Alqerban A, Jacobs R, Lambrechts P, Loozen G, Willems G. Root resorption of the maxillary lateral incisor caused by impacted canine: A literature review. Clin Oral Investig. 2009;13:247-55.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0262-8

PMid:19277728 

3. Becker A, Sharabi S, Chaushu S. Maxillary tooth size variation in dentitions with palatal canine displacement. Eur J Orthod. 2002;24:313-8.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/24.3.313

PMid:12143095 

4. Servais JA, Gaalaas L, Lunos S, Beiraghi S, Larson BE, Leon-Salazar V. Alternative cone-beam computed tomography method for the analysis of bone density around impacted maxillary canines. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2018;154:442-9.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.01.008

PMid:30173848 

5. Dağsuyu İM, Kahraman F, Okşayan R. Three-dimensional evaluation of angular, linear, and resorption features of maxillary impacted canines on cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Radiol. 2018;34:66-72.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-017-0289-5

PMid:30484094 

6. 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.

PMid:23189294

7. Magat G, Ozcan Sener S. Evaluation of trabecular pattern of mandible using fractal dimension, bone area fraction, and gray scale value: comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography. Oral Radiol. 2019;35:35-42.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-018-0316-1

PMid:30484179 

8. Katsumata A, Hirukawa A, Okumura S, et al. Effects of image artifacts on gray-value density in limited-volume cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;104:829-36.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.12.005

PMid:17448704 

9. Andruch K, Płachta A. Evaluating Maxilla Bone Quality Through Clinical Investigation of Voxel Grey Scale Values from Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for Dental Use. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2015;24:1071-7.

https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/28113

PMid:26771981 

10. Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, Der Van Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Influence of cone beam CT scanning parameters on grey value measurements at an implant site. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42:79884780.

https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/79884780

PMid:22933535 PMCid:PMC3667541

11. Rege ICC, Botelho T de L, Martins AFL, Leles CR, Mendonça EF. Pixel gray measurement for the diagnosis of dental ankylosis in cone beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2020 (in press). doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2020.08.030.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2020.08.030

PMid:32994089 

12. Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Pacifici A, Pacifici L, Barbato E. How accurate is CBCT in measuring bone density? A comparative CBCT-CT in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16:471-8.

https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12027

PMid:23294461 

13. Al-Zahrani MS, Elfirt EY, Al-Ahmari MM, Yamany IA, Alabdulkarim MA, Zawawi KH. Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography-Derived Alveolar Bone Density Between Subjects with and without Aggressive Periodontitis. J Clin Diagnostic Res. 2017;11:10-3.

https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/22767.9305

PMid:28274060 PMCid:PMC5324485

14. 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. 2015;26:e1-7.

https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12315

PMid:24325572 

15. Rodrigues AF, Da Silva Campos MJ, Chaoubah A, Fraga MR, Farinazzo Vitral RW. Use of gray values in CBCT and MSCT images for determination of density: Influence of variation of FOV size. Implant Dent. 2015;24:155-9.

https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000179

PMid:25706259 

16. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. The palatally displaced canine as a dental anomaly of genetic origin. Angle Orthod. 1994;64:249-56.

PMid:7978519

17. Pirinen S, Arte S, Apajalahti S. Palatal displacement of canine is genetic and related to congenital absence of teeth. J Dent Res. 1996;75:1742-6.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345960750100601

PMid:8955668 

18. De Santis D, Sinigaglia S, Pancera P, Faccioni P, Portelli M, Luciano U, et al. An overview of socket preservation. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2019;33:55-9.

PMid:30966733

19. Katsumata A, Hirukawa A, Okumura S, Naitoh M, Fujishita M, Ariji E, Langlais RP. Relationship between density variability and imaging volume size in cone-beam computerized tomographic scanning of the maxillofacial region: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107:420-5.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.05.049

PMid:18715805 

20. Alqerban A, Jacobs R, Fieuws S, Willems G. Predictors of root resorption associated with maxillary canine impaction in panoramic images. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38:292-9.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv047

PMid:26150321 PMCid:PMC4914904

21. Shapurian T, Damoulis PD, Reiser GM, Griffin TJ, Rand WM. Quantitative evaluation of bone density using the Hounsfield index. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21:290-7.

PMid:16634501

22. da Silva Campos MJ, de Souza TS, Junior SLM, Fraga MR, Vitral RWF. Bone mineral density in cone beam computed tomography: Only a few shades of gray. World J Radiol. 2014;6:607-12.

https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v6.i8.607

PMid:25170398 PMCid:PMC4147441

23. Shokri A, Ramezani L, Bidgoli M, Akbarzadeh M, Ghazikhanlu-Sani K, Fallahi-Sichani H. Effect of field-of-view size on gray values derived from cone-beam computed tomography compared with the Hounsfield unit values from multidetector computed tomography scans. Imaging Sci Dent. 2018;48:31-9.

https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2018.48.1.31

PMid:29581947 PMCid:PMC5863017

24. Hua Y, Nackaerts O, Duyck J, Maes F, Jacobs R. Bone quality assessment based on cone beam computed tomography imaging. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:767-71.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01677.x

PMid:19489931 

25. Pauwels R, Nackaerts O, Bellaiche N, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A, et al. Variability of dental cone beam CT grey values for density estimations. Br J Radiol. 2013;86:20120135.

https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20120135

PMid:23255537 PMCid:PMC4651064

26. 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.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01896.x

PMid:20443807 

27. Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39:323-35.

https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/19603304

PMid:20729181 PMCid:PMC3520236

28. Hao Y, Zhao W, Wang Y, Yu J, Zou D. Assessments of jaw bone density at implant sites using 3D cone-beam computed tomography. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014;18:1398-403.

PMid:24867520

29. England GM, Moon ES, Roth J, Deguchi T, Firestone AR, Beck FM, et al. Conditions and calibration to obtain comparable grey values between different clinical cone beam computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2017;46:1-8.

https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160322

PMid:27844482 PMCid:PMC5595016

30. Magill D, Beckmann N, Felice MA, Yoo T, Luo M, Mupparapu M. Investigation of dental cone-beam CT pixel data and a modified method for conversion to hounsfield unit (HU). Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018;47:20170321.

https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20170321

PMid:29076750 PMCid:PMC5965908