Imaging Science in Dentistry

  • 제49권2호
  • /
  • Pages.139-151
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 2233-7822(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-7830(eISSN)
대한영상치의학회 (Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Optimization of exposure parameters and relationship between subjective and technical image quality in cone-beam computed tomography

  • Park, Ha-Na (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Chonbuk National University) ;
  • Min, Chang-Ki (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Chonbuk National University) ;
  • Kim, Kyoung-A (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Chonbuk National University) ;
  • Koh, Kwang-Joon (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Chonbuk National University)
  • 투고 : 2019.01.30
  • 심사 : 2019.04.16
  • 발행 : 2019.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: This study was performed to investigate the effect of exposure parameters on image quality obtained using a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanner and the relationship between physical factors and clinical image quality depending on the diagnostic task. Materials and Methods: CBCT images of a SedentexCT IQ phantom and a real skull phantom were obtained under different combinations of tube voltage and tube current (Alphard 3030 CBCT scanner, 78-90 kVp and 2-8 mA). The images obtained using a SedentexCT IQ phantom were analyzed technically, and the physical factors of image noise, contrast resolution, spatial resolution, and metal artifacts were measured. The images obtained using a real skull phantom were evaluated for each diagnostic task by 6 oral and maxillofacial radiologists, and each setting was classified as acceptable or unacceptable based on those evaluations. A statistical analysis of the relationships of exposure parameters and physical factors with observer scores was conducted. Results: For periapical diagnosis and implant planning, the tube current of the acceptable images was significantly higher than that of the unacceptable images. Image noise, the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), the line pair chart on the Z axis, and modulation transfer function (MTF) values showed statistically significant differences between the acceptable and unacceptable image groups. The cut-off values obtained using receiver operating characteristic curves for CNR and MTF 10 were useful for determining acceptability. Conclusion: Tube current had a major influence on clinical image quality. CNR and MTF 10 were useful physical factors that showed significantly associations with clinical image quality.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 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
  2. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72: 75-80.
  3. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139: 1237-43. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0339
  4. Al-Okshi A, Theodorakou C, Lindh C. Dose optimization for assessment of periodontal structures in cone beam CT examinations. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017; 46: 20160311. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160311
  5. Cohnen M, Kemper J, Mobes O, Pawelzik J, Modder U. Radi-ation dose in dental radiology. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 634-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300100928
  6. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 219-26. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/14340323
  7. 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
  8. Pauwels R, Seynaeve L, Henriques JC, de Oliveira-Santos C, Souza PC, Westphalen FH, et al. Optimization of dental CBCT exposures through mAs reduction. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20150108. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150108
  9. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.042
  10. 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
  11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/16770531
  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. Loubele M, Van Assche N, Carpentier K, Maes F, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D, et al. Comparative localized linear accuracy of small-field cone-beam CT and multislice CT for alveolar bone measurements. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105: 512-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.05.004
  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.10.039
  15. 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
  16. Pauwels R, Stamatakis H, Manousaridis G, Walker A, Michielsen K, Bosmans H, et al. Development and applicability of a quality control phantom for dental cone-beam CT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2011; 12: 3478.
  17. 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.
  18. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM Jr, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012. p. 60-99.
  19. Brullmann D, Schulze RK. Spatial resolution in CBCT machines for dental/maxillofacial applications - what do we know today? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140204. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140204
  20. Freitas DQ, Fontenele RC, Nascimento EHL, Vasconcelos TV, Noujeim M. Influence of acquisition parameters on the magnitude of cone beam computed tomography artifacts. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018; 47: 20180151. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180151
  21. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  22. 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. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140059
  23. Hidalgo Rivas JA, Horner K, Thiruvenkatachari B, Davies J, Theodorakou C. Development of a low-dose protocol for cone beam CT examinations of the anterior maxilla in children. Br J Radiol 2015; 88: 20150559. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150559
  24. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.02.053
  25. 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.
  26. Dawood A, Brown J, Sauret-Jackson V, Purkayastha S. Optimization of cone beam CT exposure for pre-surgical evaluation of the implant site. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 70-4. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/16421849
  27. Panmekiate S, Apinhasmit W, Petersson A. Effect of electric potential and current on mandibular linear measurements in cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 578-82. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/51664704
  28. McGuigan MB, Duncan HF, Horner K. An analysis of effective dose optimization and its impact on image quality and diagnostic efficacy relating to dental cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Swiss Dent J 2018; 128: 297-316.
  29. Goulston R, Davies J, Horner K, Murphy F. Dose optimization by altering the operating potential and tube current exposure time product in dental cone beam CT: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016; 45: 20150254. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150254
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. Watanabe H, Nomura Y, Kuribayashi A, Kurabayashi T. Spatial resolution measurements by Radia diagnostic software with SEDENTEXCT image quality phantom in cone beam CT for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018; 47: 20170307.
  33. 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
  34. Pauwels R, Stamatakis H, Bosmans H, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R, Horner K, et al. Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24 Suppl A100: 94-9.
  35. Schulze RK, Berndt D, d'Hoedt B. On cone-beam computed tomography artifacts induced by titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21: 100-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01817.x

피인용 문헌

  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. Effects of Exposure Parameters and Voxel Size for Cone-Beam Computed Tomography on the Image Matching Accuracy with an Optical Dental Scan Image: An In Vitro Study vol.2021, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6971828
  3. Quantitative assessment of artefacts and identification of gaps in prosthetic crowns: a comparative in vitro study between periapical radiography and CBCT images vol.50, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20200134