Development of a low-dose protocol for cone beam CT examinations of the anterior maxilla in children

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 88, Issue 1054, 2015, Pages

  Hidalgo Rivas, Jose A ^a,c   Horner, Keith ^a   Thiruvenkatachari, Badri ^a   Davies, Jonathan ^a   Theodorakou, Chrysoula ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b CHRISTIE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSIDAD DE TALCA   (Chile)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

POLITEF; POLYETHYLENE;

ARTICLE; CHILD; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; LOW ENERGY RADIATION; MAXILLA; PHANTOM; RADIATION DOSE; SKULL; PROCEDURES; RADIOGRAPHY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

CHILD; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAXILLA; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE;

EID: 84942134584     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: 1748880X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150559     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson DB, et al. Effective dose of dental CBCT-a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140197. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20140197
2. White SC, Scarfe WC, Schulze RK, Lurie AG, Douglass JM, Farman AG, et al. The Image Gently in Dentistry campaign: promotion of responsible use of maxillofacial radiology in dentistry for children. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2014; 118: 257-61. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2014.06.001
3. Hidalgo-Rivas JA, Theodorakou C, Carmichael F, Murray B, Payne M, Horner K. Use of cone beam CT in children and young people in three United Kingdom dental hospitals. Int J Paediatr Dent 2014; 24: 336-48. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12076
4. European Commission. Radiation protection 172. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence-based guidelines. Luxembourg City, Luxembourg: European Commission, Directorate for Energy; 2012.
5. Health Protection Agency. Guidance on the safe use of dental cone beam CT (computed tomography) equipment. Chilton, UK: Health Protection Agency; 2010. Report No.: HPACRCE-010.
6. American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Clinical recommendations regarding use of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Position statement by the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013; 116: 238-57. Erratum in: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013; 116: 661. doi: 10.1016/j. oooo.2013.06.002
7. Nemtoi A, Czink C, Haba D, Gahleitner A. Cone beam CT: a current overview of devices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013; 42: 20120443. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20120443
8. Lofthag-Hansen S, Thilander-Klang A, Grondahl K. Evaluation of subjective image quality in relation to diagnostic task for cone beam computed tomography with different fields of view. Eur J Radiol 2011; 80: 483-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.09.018
9. Kwong JC, Palomo JM, Landers MA, Figueroa A, Hans MG. Image quality produced by different cone-beam computed tomography settings. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 317-27. doi: 10.1016/j. ajodo.2007.02.053
10. Brown AA, Scarfe WC, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Linear accuracy of cone beam CT derived 3D images. Angle Orthod 2009; 79: 150-7. doi: 10.2319/122407-599.1
11. Sur J, Seki K, Koizumi H, Nakajima K, Okano T. Effects of tube current on cone-beam computerized tomography image quality for presurgical implant planning in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 110: e29-33. doi: 10.1016/j. tripleo.2010.03.041
12. Durack C, Patel S, Davies J, Wilson R, Mannocci F. Diagnostic accuracy of small volume cone beam computed tomography and intraoral periapical radiography for the detection of simulated external inflammatory root resorption. Int Endod J 2011; 44: 136-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01819.x
13. Lennon S, Patel S, Foschi F, Wilson R, Davies J, Mannocci F. Diagnostic accuracy of limited-volume cone-beam computed tomography in the detection of periapical bone loss: 360o scans versus 180o scans. Int Endod J 2011; 44: 1118-27. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01930.x
14. Dawood A, Brown J, Sauret-Jackson V, Purkayastha S. Optimization of cone beam CTexposure for pre-surgical evaluation of the implant site. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 70-4. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/16421849
15. Al-Ekrish AA. Effect of exposure time on the accuracy and reliability of cone beam computed tomography in the assessment of dental implant site dimensions in dry skulls. Saudi Dent J 2012; 24: 127-34. doi: 10.1016/j. sdentj.2012.05.001
16. Vandenberghe B, Luchsinger S, Hostens J, Dhoore E, Jacobs R. The influence of exposure parameters on jawbone model accuracy using cone beam CT and multislice CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 466-74. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/81272805
17. Hashem D, Brown JE, Patel S, Mannocci F, Donaldson AN, Watson TF, et al. An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of measurements obtained from high- and low-resolution cone-beam computed tomography scans. J Endod 2013; 39: 394-7. doi: 10.1016/j. joen.2012.11.017
18. Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Influence of cone beam CT scanning parameters on grey value measurements at an implant site. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 79884780. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/79884780
19. Neves FS, Souza T, Vaz SL, Campos PSF, Bóscolo F. Influence of cone-beam computed tomography milliamperage settings on image quality of the mandibular third molar region. Oral Radiol 2014; 30: 27-31. doi: 10.1007/s11282-013-0132-6
20. Waltrick KB, Nunes de Abreu MJ, Jr, Correa M, Zastrow MD, Dutra VD. Accuracy of linear measurements and visibility of the mandibular canal of cone-beam computed tomography images with different voxel sizes: An in vitro study. J Periodontol 2013; 84: 68-77. doi: 10.1902/jop.2012.110524
21. Dougeni E, Faulkner K, Panayiotakis G. A review of patient dose and optimisation methods in adult and paediatric CT scanning. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: e665-83. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.05.025
22. Ludlow JB, Walker C. Assessment of phantom dosimetry and image quality of i-CAT FLX cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144: 802-17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.07.013
23. Harris D, Horner K, Grondahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E, Benic GI, et al. E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical University of Warsaw. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 1243-53. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02441.x
24. NHS Breast Screening Programme. Commissioning and routine testing of full field digital mammography systems. Sheffield, UK: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes 2009. NHSBSP Equipment Report 0604 Version 3.
25. Shelley AM, Brunton, P, Horner K. Subjective image quality assessment of cross sectional imaging methods for the symphyseal region of the mandible prior to dental implant placement. J Dent 2011; 39: 764-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.08.008
26. Al Qahtani S. HectorM, LiversidgeH. Brief communication: The London atlas of tooth development and eruption. Am J Phys Anthropol 2010; 142: 481-90. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21258
27. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London, UK: Chapman and Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science; 1990.
28. Meyer BC, Hemmen TM, Jackson CM, Lyden PD. Modified National Institutes Stroke Scale for use in stroke clinical trials. Stroke 2002; 33: 1261-6. doi: 10.1161/01. STR.0000015625.87603.A7
29. Heetveld MJ, Raaymakers EL, van Walsum A, Barei DP, Steller EP. Observer assessment of femoral neck radiographs after reduction and dynamic hip screw fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2005; 125: 160-5. doi: 10.1007/s00402-004-0780-4
30. Armitage P, Berry G, Matthews JNS. Statistical methods in medical research. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd; 2008.
31. Holroyd JR, Walker A. Recommendations for the design of X-ray facilities and the quality assurance of dental cone beam CT (computed tomography) systems. A report of the HPA working party on dental cone beam CT. Report No.: HPA-RPD-065. Chilton, UK: Health Protection Agency; 2010.
32. Loubele M, Jacobs R, Maes F, Denis K,White S, Coudyzer W, et al. Image quality vs radiation dose of four cone beam computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 309-18. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/16770531
33. LoubeleM, Maes F, Jacobs R, van SteenbergheD, White SC, Suetens P. Comparative study of image quality for MSCT and CBCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial radiology applications. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008; 129: 222-6. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncn154
34. Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Käser Y, Peltola J, Kortesniemi M. Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38: 367-78. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/15779208
35. Watanabe H, Honda E, Tetsumura A, Kurabayashi T. A comparative study for spatial resolution and subjective image characteristics of a multi-slice CT and a conebeam CT for dental use. Eur J Radiol 2011; 77: 397-402. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.09.023
36. Pauwels R, Stamatakis H, Manousaridis G, Walker A, Koen M, Bosmans H, et al. Development and applicability of a quality control phantom for dental cone-beam CT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2011; 12: 245-60.
37. Yu L, Bruesewitz MR, Thomas KB, Fletcher JG, Kofler JM, McCollough CH. Optimal tube voltage for radiation dose reduction in pediatric CT: principles, clinical implementations, and pitfalls. Radiographics 2011; 31: 835-48. doi: 10.1148/rg.313105079
38. Kalender WA, Deak P, Kellermeier M, van Straten M, Vollmar SV. Application- and patient size-dependent optimization of x-ray spectra for CT. Med Phys 2009; 36: 993-1007. doi: 10.1118/1.3075901
39. Siegel MJ, Schmidt B, Bradley D, Suess C, Hildebolt C. Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape. Radiology 2004; 233: 515-22. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2332032107
40. 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. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20120135
41. Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Kameoka S, Akiyama Y, Honjoya T, Ejima K, et al. Comparison of image validity between cone beam computed tomography for dental use and multidetector row helical computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36: 465-71. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/22818643
42. Alqerban A, Jacobs R, Fieuws S, Nackaerts O, Willems G; SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. A comparison of six cone beam computed tomography systems for image quality and detection of simulated canine impaction-induced external root resorption in maxillary lateral incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140: e129-39. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.03.021
43. Gijbels F, Sanderink G, Bou Serhal C, Pauwels H, Jacobs R. Organ doses and subjective image quality of indirect digital panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 308-13. doi: 10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600640
44. Moansson LG. Methods for the evaluation of image quality: a review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000; 90: 89-99.
45. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A, Bosmans H, et al. Comparison of spatial and contrast resolution for cone-beam computed tomography scanners. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012; 114: 127-35. doi: 10.1016/j. oooo.2012.01.020
46. Pauwels R, Silkosessak O, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H, Panmekiate S. A pragmatic approach to determine the optimal kVp in cone-beam CT: balancing contrast-to-noise ratio and radiation dose. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43: 20140059. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20140059