Optimization of dental CBCT exposures through mAs reduction

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 44, Issue 9, 2015, Pages

  Pauwels, R ^a,b   Seynaeve, L ^b   Henriques, J C G ^b   De Oliveira Santos, C ^c   Souza, P C ^d   Westphalen, F H ^d   Rubira Bullen, I R F ^c   Ribeiro Rotta, R F ^e   Rockenbach, M I B ^f   Haiter Neto, F ^g   Pittayapat, P ^a,b   Bosmans, H ^h   Bogaerts, R ^h   Jacobs, R ^a  

^a CHULALONGKORN UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

^b DEPARTMENT OF IMAGING AND PATHOLOGY   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^d PONTIFICAL CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF PARANÁ   (Brazil)

^e FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF GOIÁS   (Brazil)

^f PONTIFICAL CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF RIO GRANDE DO SUL   (Brazil)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS   (Brazil)

^h UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Computer assisted image processing; Computer assisted radiographic image interpretation; Cone beam computed tomography; Quality control

Indexed keywords

POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE);

ADULT; ANATOMIC LANDMARK; ARTIFACT; CHEMISTRY; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DEVICES; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGING PHANTOM; MALE; MANDIBLE; MAXILLA; PROCEDURES; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOGRAPHY; SKULL; TIME FACTOR; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY;

ADULT; ANATOMIC LANDMARKS; ARTIFACTS; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMANS; MALE; MANDIBLE; MAXILLA; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; POLYMETHYL METHACRYLATE; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; SKULL; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84948128830     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20150108     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Pauwels R, Cockmartin L, Ivanauskaité D, Urboniene A, Gavala S, Donta C, et al; SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. Estimating cancer risk from dental cone-beam CT exposures based on skin dosimetry. Phys Med Biol 2014; 59: 3877-91. doi: 10.1088/ 0031-9155/59/14/3877
2. ICRP. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007; 37: 1-332.
3. 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
4. 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
5. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT) part I. On subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75: 265-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.042
6. Park YS, Ahn JS, Kwon HB, Lee SP. Current status of dental caries diagnosis using cone beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent 2011; 41: 43-51. doi: 10.5624/isd.2011.41.2.43
7. Esposito S, Cardaropoli M, Cotti E. A suggested technique for the application of the cone beam computed tomography periapical index. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 506-12. doi: 10.1259/ dmfr/78881369
8. Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y, Denis K, Hassan B, Li L, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part II: on 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75: 270-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.04.016
9. Loubele M, Maes F, Schutyser F, Marchal G, Jacobs R, Suetens P. Assessment of bone segmentation quality of cone-beam CT versus multislice spiral CT: a pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 102: 225-34. doi: 10.1016/j. tripleo.2005.10.039
10. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A, Bosmans H, et al; SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. 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
11. Watanabe H, Honda E, Kurabayashi T. Modulation transfer function evaluation of cone beam computed tomography for dental use with the oversampling method. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010; 39: 28-32. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/27069629
12. Vassileva J, Stoyanov D. Quality control and patient dosimetry in dental cone beam CT. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010; 139: 310-12. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncq011
13. Pauwels R, Stamatakis H, Manousaridis G, Walker A, Michielsen K, Bosmans H, et al; SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. Development and applicability of a quality control phantom for dental cone-beam CT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2011; 12: 245-60. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v12i4.3478
14. Oliveira ML, Freitas DQ, Ambrosano GM, Haiter-Neto F. Influence of exposure factors on the variability of CBCT voxel values: a phantom study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43: 20140128. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20140128
15. Jessen KA. The quality criteria concept: an introduction and overview. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2001; 94: 29-32. doi: 10.1093/ oxfordjournals.rpd.a006474
16. Alqerban A, Jacobs R, Fieuws S, Willems G. Comparison of two cone beam computed tomographic systems versus panoramic imaging for localization of impacted maxillary canines and detection of root resorption. Eur J Orthod 2011; 33: 93-102. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq034
17. 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
18. Soʇur E, Baksi BG, Gröndahl HG. Imaging of root canal fillings: a comparison of subjective image quality between limited cone-beam CT, storage phosphor and film radiography. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 179-85. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01204.x
19. Hashimoto K, Arai Y, Iwai K, Araki M, Kawashima S, Terakado M. A comparison of a new limited cone beam computed tomography machine for dental use with a multidetector row helical CT machine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003; 95: 371-7. doi: 10.1067/moe.2003.120
20. Spin-Neto R, Mudrak J, Matzen LH, Christensen J, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Cone beam CT image artefacts related to head motion simulated by a robot skull: visual characteristics and impact on image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 32310645. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/32310645
21. Pauwels R, Stamatakis H, Bosmans H, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R, Horner K, et al; SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24(Suppl. A100): 94-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02382.x
22. Funama Y, Sugaya Y, Miyazaki O, Utsunomiya D, Yamashita Y, Awai K. Automatic exposure control at MDCT based on the contrast-to-noise ratio: theoretical background and phantom study. Phys Med 2013; 29: 39-47. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2011.11.004
23. Muhogora WE, Devetti A, Padovani R, Msaki P, Bonutti F. Application of European protocol in the evaluation of contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose for two digital mammogra-phy systems. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008; 129: 231-6. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncn023
24. Vassileva J, Rehani M. Diagnostic reference levels. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204: W1-3. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.12794