Ultralow dose dentomaxillofacial CT imaging and iterative reconstruction techniques: Variability of Hounsfield units and contrast-to-noise ratio

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 89, Issue 1060, 2016, Pages

  Widmann, Gerlig ^a   Bischel, Alexander ^a   Stratis, Andreas ^b   Kakar, Apoorv ^b   Bosmans, Hilde ^b   Jacobs, Reinhilde ^b   Gassner, Eva Maria ^a   Puelacher, Wolfgang ^a   Pauwels, Ruben ^b,c  

^a INNSBRUCK MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Austria)

^b DEPARTMENT OF IMAGING AND PATHOLOGY   (Belgium)

^c CHULALONGKORN UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HOUNSFIELD UNIT; IMAGE ANALYSIS; ITERATIVE RECONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DEVICES; EVALUATION STUDY; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGING PHANTOM; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PROCEDURES; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO;

HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO;

EID: 84988479650     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20151055     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Turkyilmaz I, Tumer C, Ozbek EN, Tözüm TF. Relations between the bone density values from computerized tomography, and implant stability parameters: a clinical study of 230 regular platform implants. J Clin Periodontol 2007; 34: 716-22. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01112.x
2. Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer SR, Mupparapu M. CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140238. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1259/dmfr.20140238
3. Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R. Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Research 2011; 22: 873-9. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02076.x
4. Pauwels R. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial imaging: dose matters. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2015; 165: 156-61. doi: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncv057
5. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, et al; SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 267-71. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ejrad.2010.11.028
6. Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29: 55-77. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.4
7. Widmann G, Dalla Torre D, Hoermann R, Schullian P, Gassner EM, Bale R, et al. Ultralow-dose computed tomography imaging for surgery of midfacial and orbital fractures using ASIR and MBIR. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 44: 441-6. doi: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.01.011
8. Widmann G, Fasser M, Schullian P, Zangerl A, Puelacher W, Kral F, et al. Substantial dose reduction in modern multi-slice spiral computed tomography (MSCT)-guided craniofacial and skull base surgery. Rofo 2012; 184: 136-42. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1281971
9. Silva AC, Lawder HJ, Hara A, Kujak J, Pavlicek W. Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 191-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2953
10. 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: 3478. doi: http://dx. doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v12i4.3478
11. Fleischmann D, Boas FE. Computed tomography-old ideas and new technology. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 510-7. doi: http://dx. doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2056-z
12. Pauwels R, Nackaerts O, Bellaiche N, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A, et al; SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. Variability of dental cone beam CT grey values for density estimations. Br J Radiol 2013; 86: 20120135. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/ bjr.20120135
13. Dixon RL, Boone JM. Cone beam CT dosimetry: a unified and self-consistent approach including all scan modalities-with or without phantom motion. Med Phys 2010; 37: 2703-18. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/ 1.3395578
14. Kalra MK, Sodickson AD, Mayo-Smith WW. CT Radiation: key concepts for gentle and wise use. Radiographics 2015; 35: 1706-21. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015150118
15. McCollough CH, Chen GH, Kalender W, Leng S, Samei E, Taguchi K, et al. Achieving routine submillisievert CT scanning: report from the summit on management of radiation dose in CT. Radiology 2012; 264: 567-80. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/ radiol.12112265
16. Kyriakou Y, Kolditz D, Langner O, Krause J, Kalender W. Digital volume tomography (DVT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT): an objective examination of dose and image quality [. In German.] Rofo 2011; 183: 144-53. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1245709
17. Nackaerts O, Depypere M, Zhang G, Vandenberghe B, Maes F, Jacobs R; SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. Segmentation of trabecular jaw bone on cone beam CT datasets. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 17: 1082-91. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ cid.12217
18. Van Dessel J, Huang Y, Depypere M, Rubira-Bullen I, Maes F, Jacobs R. A comparative evaluation of cone beam CT and micro-CT on trabecular bone structures in the human mandible. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20130145. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/ dmfr.20130145
19. Norton MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12: 79-84. doi: http://dx. doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012001079.x
20. 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: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.01.020