nach oben

Erschienen in:

11.05.2016 | Head and Neck

Performance of cone-beam computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography in diagnostic imaging of the midface: A comparative study on Phantom and cadaver head scans

verfasst von: Simon Veldhoen, Maximilian Schöllchen, H. Hanken, C. Precht, F. O. Henes, G. Schön, H. D. Nagel, U. Schumacher, M. Heiland, G. Adam, M. Regier

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 2/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To compare multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) regarding radiation, resolution, image noise, and image quality.

Methods

CBCT and 256-MDCT were compared based on three scan protocols: Standard-dose (≈24 mGy), reduced-dose (≈9 mGy), and low-dose (≈4 mGy). MDCT images were acquired in standard- and high-resolution mode (HR-MDCT) and reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR). Spatial resolution in linepairs (lp) and objective image noise (OIN) were assessed using dedicated phantoms. Image quality was assessed in scans of 25 cadaver heads using a Likert scale.

Results

OIN was markedly higher in FBP-MDCT when compared to CBCT. IR lowered the OIN to comparable values in standard-mode MDCT only. CBCT provided a resolution of 13 lp/cm at standard-dose and 11 lp/cm at reduced-dose vs. 11 lp/cm and 10 lp/cm in HR-MDCT. Resolution of 10 lp/cm was observed for both devices using low-dose settings. Quality scores of MDCT and CBCT did not differ at standard-dose (CBCT, 3.4; MDCT, 3.3-3.5; p > 0.05). Using reduced- and low-dose protocols, CBCT was superior (reduced-dose, 3.2 vs. 2.8; low dose, 3.0 vs. 2.3; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Using the low-dose protocol, the assessed CBCT provided better objective and subjective image quality and equality in resolution. Similar image quality, but better resolution using CBCT was observed at higher exposure settings.

Key Points

• The assessed CBCT device provided better image quality at lower doses.

• Objective and subjective image quality were comparable using higher exposure settings.

• CBCT showed superior spatial resolution in standard-dose and reduced-dose settings.

• Modern noise-reducing tools are used in CBCT devices currently.

• MDCT should be preferred for assessment of soft-tissue injuries and oncologic imaging.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Makdissi J (2013) Cone beam CT in orthodontics: the current picture. Int Orthod 11:1–20PubMed

Castro IO, Alencar AHG, Valladares-Neto J, Estrela C (2013) Apical root resorption due to orthodontic treatment detected by cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 83:196–203CrossRefPubMed

Wang Y, He S, Guo Y et al (2013) Accuracy of volumetric measurement of simulated root resorption lacunas based on cone beam computed tomography. Orthod Craniofacial Res. doi:10.1111/ocr.12016

Ozdemir F, Tozlu M, Germec-Cakan D (2013) Cortical bone thickness of the alveolar process measured with cone-beam computed tomography in patients with different facial types. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 143:190–196CrossRef

Koskinen SK, Haapamäki VV, Salo J et al (2013) CT arthrography of the wrist using a novel, mobile, dedicated extremity cone-beam CT (CBCT). Skelet Radiol 42:649–657CrossRef

Truong MT, Hirsch AE, Kovalchuk N et al (2013) Cone-beam computed tomography image guided therapy to evaluate lumpectomy cavity variation before and during breast radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 14:4243PubMed

Isaacson KG, Thom AR, Horner K, Whaites E (2008) Orthodontic radiographs - guidelines, 3rd edn. British Orthodontic Society, London

Kapila S, Conley RS, Harrell WE (2011) The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 40:24–34CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Harrell WE, Hatcher DC, Bolt RL (2002) In search of anatomic truth: 3-dimensional digital modeling and the future of orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 122:325–330CrossRef

10.

Heiland M, Schulze D, Blake F, Schmelzle R (2005) Intraoperative imaging of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures using a 3D C-arm system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34:369–375CrossRefPubMed

11.

Pohlenz P, Blake F, Blessmann M et al (2009) Intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery using a C-arm prototype: first clinical experiences after treatment of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:515–521CrossRefPubMed

12.

Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Käser Y et al (2009) Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 38:367–378CrossRefPubMed

13.

Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E et al (2009) Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 71:461–468CrossRefPubMed

14.

Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, Adam G (2004) Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4- and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:83–86CrossRefPubMed

15.

Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B et al (2010) A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT) Part I. On subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol 75:265–269CrossRefPubMed

16.

Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Kameoka S et al (2007) Comparison of image validity between cone beam computed tomography for dental use and multidetector row helical computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36:465–471CrossRefPubMed

17.

Kyriakou Y, Kolditz D, Langner O et al (2011) Digital volume tomography (DVT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT): an objective examination of dose and image quality. Röfo 183:144–153PubMed

18.

Hofmann E, Schmid M, Sedlmair M et al (2013) Comparative study of image quality and radiation dose of cone beam and low-dose multislice computed tomography - an in-vitro investigation. Clin Oral Investig. doi:10.1007/s00784-013-0948-9 PubMed

19.

Willemink MJ, de Jong PA, Leiner T et al (2013) Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography Part 1: technical principles. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2765-y

20.

IEC 60601-2-44 Edition 3.1 (2012-09). X-ray Equipment for Computed Tomography

21.

Pauwels R, Nackaerts O, Bellaiche N et al (2013) Variability of dental cone beam CT grey values for density estimations. Br J Radiol 86:20120135CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Kemper J, Regier M, Bansmann PM et al (2007) Multidetector CT urography: experimental analysis of radiation dose reduction in an animal model. Eur Radiol 17:2318–2324CrossRefPubMed

23.

Wedegärtner U, Lorenzen M, Nagel HD et al (2004) Image quality of thin- and thick-slice MSCT reconstructions in low-contrast objects (liver lesions) with equal doses. Röfo 176:1676–1682PubMed

24.

Gurung J, Khan MF, Maataoui A et al (2005) Multislice CT of the pelvis: dose reduction with regard to image quality using 16-row CT. Eur Radiol 15:1898–1905CrossRefPubMed

25.

Lee WJ, Chong S, Seo JS, Shim HJ (2012) Transthoracic fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the lungs using a C-arm cone-beam CT system: diagnostic accuracy and post-procedural complications. Br J Radiol 85:e217–e222CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Kokkonen HT, Suomalainen J-S, Joukainen A et al (2014) In vivo diagnostics of human knee cartilage lesions using delayed CBCT arthrography. J Orthop Res 32:403–412CrossRefPubMed

27.

Hatcher DC (2012) CT & CBCT imaging: assessment of the orbits. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 24:537–543CrossRefPubMed

28.

Heiland M, Pohlenz P, Blessmann M et al (2007) Cervical soft tissue imaging using a mobile CBCT scanner with a flat panel detector in comparison with corresponding CT and MRI data sets. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104:814–820CrossRefPubMed

29.

Coppenrath E, Draenert F, Lechel U et al (2008) Cross-sectional imaging in dentomaxillofacial diagnostics: dose comparison of dental MSCT and NewTom 9000 DVT. Röfo 180:396–401PubMed

30.

Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M (2008) Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:106–114CrossRefPubMed

31.

Kalender WA, Buchenau S, Deak P et al (2008) Technical approaches to the optimisation of CT. Phys Med 24:71–79CrossRefPubMed

32.

Schulze R (2013) s2k-Leitlinie dentale digitale Volumentomographie [Internet, cited 2014 Apr 2]. Available from: http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/083-005.html

33.

Schneider M (2013) Radiologische Bildgebung in der Zahnheilkunde. Zahnmedizin up2date 7:477–501. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1325101

Titel: Performance of cone-beam computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography in diagnostic imaging of the midface: A comparative study on Phantom and cadaver head scans
verfasst von: Simon Veldhoen
Maximilian Schöllchen
H. Hanken
C. Precht
F. O. Henes
G. Schön
H. D. Nagel
U. Schumacher
M. Heiland
G. Adam
M. Regier
Publikationsdatum: 11.05.2016
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4387-2

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Performance of cone-beam computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography in diagnostic imaging of the midface: A comparative study on Phantom and cadaver head scans