Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Factors affecting modulation transfer function measurements in cone-beam computed tomographic images

  • Choi, Jin-Woo (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dankook University College of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2019.03.02
  • Accepted : 2019.04.04
  • Published : 2019.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was designed to investigate the effects of voxel size, the oversampling technique, and the direction and area of measurement on modulation transfer function (MTF) values to identify the optimal method of MTF measurement. Materials and Methods: Images of the wire inserts of the SedentexCT IQ phantom were acquired, and MTF values were calculated under different conditions(voxel size of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 mm; 5 oversampling techniques; simulated pixel location errors; and different directions and areas of measurement). The differences in the MTF values across various conditions were evaluated. Results: The MTF 10 values showed smaller standard deviations than the MTF 50 values. Stable and accurate MTF values were obtained in the 0.1-mm voxel images. In the 0.3-mm voxel images, oversampling techniques of 11 lines or more did not show significant differences in MTF values depending on the presence of simulated location errors. MTF 10 values showed significant differences according to the direction and area of the measurement. Conclusion: To measure more accurate and stable MTF values, it is better to measure MTF 10 values in small-voxel images. In large-voxel images, the proper oversampling technique is required. MTF values from the radial and tangential directions may be different, and MTF values vary depending on the measured area.

Keywords

References

  1. SEDENTEXCT Guideline Development Panel. Radiation protection No 172. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence based guidelines. Luxembourg: European Commission Directorate-General for Energy; 2012.
  2. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Managing patient dose in digital radiology. A report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 2004; 34: 1-73.
  3. Choi JW, Lee SS, Choi SC, Heo MS, Huh KH, Yi WJ, et al. Relationship between physical factors and subjective image quality of cone-beam computed tomography images according to diagnostic task. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015; 119: 357-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2014.11.010
  4. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.01.020
  5. Nakahara S, Tachibana M, Watanabe Y. One-year analysis of Elekta CBCT image quality using NPS and MTF. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2016; 17: 211-22. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6047
  6. 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. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/27069629
  7. Ozaki Y, Watanabe H, Nomura Y, Honda E, Sumi Y, Kurabayashi T. Location dependency of the spatial resolution of cone beam computed tomography for dental use. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013; 116: 648-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2013.07.009
  8. Bamba J, Araki K, Endo A, Okano T. Image quality assessment of three cone beam CT machines using the SEDENTEXCT CT phantom. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20120445. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120445
  9. Elkhateeb SM, Torgersen GR, Arnout EA. Image quality assessment of clinically-applied CBCT protocols using a QAT phantom. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016; 45: 20160075. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160075
  10. de Oliveira MV, Wenzel A, Campos PS, Spin-Neto R. Quality assurance phantoms for cone beam computed tomography: a systematic literature review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017; 46: 20160329 https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160329
  11. Choi JW. Analysis of the priority of anatomic structures according to the diagnostic task in cone-beam computed tomographic images. Imaging Sci Dent 2016; 46: 245-9. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2016.46.4.245
  12. Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Kaser 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. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/15779208
  13. Ozer SY. Detection of vertical root fractures by using cone beam computed tomography with variable voxel sizes in an in vitro model. J Endod 2011; 37: 75-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.04.021
  14. Liedke GS, da Silveira HE, da Silveira HL, Dutra V, de Figueiredo JA. Influence of voxel size in the diagnostic ability of cone beam tomography to evaluate simulated external root resorption. J Endod 2009; 35: 233-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.11.005
  15. Kwan AL, Boone JM, Yang K, Huang SY. Evaluation of the spatial resolution characteristics of a cone-beam breast CT scanner. Med Phys 2007; 34: 275-81. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2400830
  16. Araki K, Maki K, Seki K, Sakamaki K, Harata Y, Sakaino R, et al. Characteristics of a newly developed dentomaxillofacial X-ray cone beam CT scanner (CB MercuRay): system configuration and physical properties. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 51-9. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/54013049
  17. 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 cone-beam CT for dental use. Eur J Radiol 2011; 77: 397-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.09.023
  18. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.07.013
  19. Torgersen GR, Hol C, Moystad A, Hellen-Halme K, Nilsson M. A phantom for simplified image quality control of dental cone beam computed tomography units. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2014; 118: 603-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2014.08.003
  20. Steiding C, Kolditz D, Kalender WA. A quality assurance framework for the fully automated and objective evaluation of image quality in cone-beam computed tomography. Med Phys 2014; 41: 031901. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4863507
  21. Dillenseger JP, Matern JF, Gros CI, Bornert F, Goetz C, Le Minor JM, et al. MSCT versus CBCT: evaluation of high-resolution acquisition modes for dento-maxillary and skull-base imaging. Eur Radiol 2015; 25: 505-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3439-8

Cited by

  1. 콘빔전산화단층촬영에서 노출 조건에 따른 화질 유지 및 선량 감소에 대한 평가 vol.14, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2020.14.4.353
  2. Influence of voxel size on micro-CT analysis of debris after root canal preparation vol.35, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2021.vol35.0008