Browse > Article

Evaluation of the effective dose and image quality of low-dose multi-detector CT for orthodontic treatment planning  

Chung, Gi-Chung (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Dankook University)
Han, Won-Jeong (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Dankook University)
Kim, Eun-Kyung (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Dankook University)
Publication Information
Imaging Science in Dentistry / v.40, no.1, 2010 , pp. 15-23 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose : This study was designed to compare the effective doses from low-dose and standard-dose multi-detector CT (MDCT) scanning protocols and evaluate the image quality and the spatial resolution of the low-dose MDCT protocols for clinical use. Materials and Methods : 6-channel MDCT scanner (Siemens Medical System, Forschheim, Germany), was used for this study. Protocol of the standard-dose MDCT for the orthodontic analysis was 130 kV, 35 mAs, 1.25 mm slice width, 0.8 pitch. Those of the low-dose MDCT for orthodontic analysis and orthodontic surgery were 110 kV, 30 mAs, 1.25 mm slice width, 0.85 pitch and 110 kV, 45 mAs, 2.5 mm slice width, 0.85 pitch. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were placed at 31 sites throughout the levels of adult female ART head and neck phantom. Effective doses were calculated according to ICRP 1990 and 2007 recommendations. A formalin-fixed cadaver and AAPM CT performance phantom were scanned for the evaluation of subjective image quality and spatial resolution. Results : Effective doses in ${\mu}Sv$ ($E_{2007}$) were 699.1, 429.4 and 603.1 for standard-dose CT of orthodontic treatment, low-dose CT of orthodontic analysis, and low-dose CT of orthodontic surgery, respectively. The image quality from the low-dose protocol were not worse than those from the standard-dose protocol. The spatial resolutions of both standard-dose and low-dose CT images were acceptable. Conclusion : From the above results, it can be concluded that the low-dose MDCT protocol is preferable in obtaining CT images for orthodontic analysis and orthodontic surgery.
Keywords
Tomography; Computed; Dosimetry; Orthodontics; Phantoms; Imaging;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 6  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 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   ScienceOn
2 Trpkova B, Major P, Prasad N, Nebbe B. Cephalometric landmarks identification and reproducibility: A meta analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997; 112 : 165-70.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Wrixon AD. New ICRP recommendations. J Radiol Prot 2008; 28 : 161-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Choi JS, Kim EK, Han WJ. The accuracy of reformatted images using a new virtual 3-dimensional dental implant system. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2003; 33 : 187-93.   과학기술학회마을
5 Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106 : 106-14.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Cho JY, Han WJ, Kim EK. Absorbed and effective dose from periapical radiography by portable intraoral x-ray machine. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2007; 37 : 149-56.   과학기술학회마을
7 Chapman VM, Kalra M, Halpern E, Grottkau B, Albright M, Jaramillo D. 16-MDCT of the posttraumatic pediatric elbow: optimum parameters and associated radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185 : 516-21.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Ludlow JB. Regarding "Influence of CBCT exposure conditions on radiation dose". J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 106 : 627-9.
9 Tack D, Widelec J, Maertelaer VD, Bailly JM, Delcour C, Gevenois PA. Comparison between low-dose and standard-dose multidetector CT in patients with suspected chronic sinusitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181 : 939-44.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Cody DD, Moxley DM, Krugh KT, O'Daniel JC, Wagner LK, Eftekhari F. Strategies for formulation appropriate MDCT techniques when imaging the chest, abdomen, and pelvis in pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 182 : 849-59.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Gijbels F, Sanerink G, Van Dam J, Nowak B, Jacobs R. Radiation doses of indirect and direct digital cephalometric radiography. Br Dent J 2004; 197 : 149-52.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Arrive L, Renard R, Carrat F, Belkacem A, Dahan H, Hir PL, et al. A scale of methodological quality for clinical studies of radiologic examination. Radiology 2000; 217 : 69-74.   DOI
13 Jang KJ, Kweon DC. Case study of quality assurance for MDCT image quality evaluation using AAPM CT performance phantom. Korea Contents 2007; 7 : 114-23.   과학기술학회마을
14 Lee YJ. Optimization of Somatom Emotion 6 Multi detector CT for 3D image in orthodontic diagnosis with minimal radiation exposure 'Unpublished doctoral dissertation'. Yeongin, Dankook Univ, 2008.
15 Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT, Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35 : 219-26.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Roberts JA, Drage NA, Davies J, Thomas DW. Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. Br J Radiol 2009; 82 : 24-40.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Han CW, Kim GT, Choi YS, Hwang EH. Image characteristics of cone beam computed tomography using a CT performance phantom. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2007; 37 : 157-63.   과학기술학회마을
18 Paterson A, Frush DP. Dose reduction in paediatric MDCT: general principles. Clin Radiol 2007; 62 : 507-17.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 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.   DOI
20 Silva MAG, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Bumann A, Visser H, Hirsch E. Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2008; 133 : 640.3e1-640.e5.
21 Hirsch E, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Silva MAG. Dosimetry of the cone beam computed tomography Veraviewepocs 3D compared with the 3D Accuitomo in different fields of view. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37 : 268-73.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL. Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32 : 229-34.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Association of Korean Professors of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. 4th ed., Seoul; Narae Publishing; 2008. p. 23-4, 181-4, 226-34.
24 Lee CL, Kim HJ, Jeon SS, Nam SR, Cho HM, Jung JY. Dose measurements using phantoms for tube voltage, tube current, slice thickness in MDCT. Korean J Med Phys 2007; 18 : 139-43.   과학기술학회마을
25 Mulkens TH, Broers C, Fieuws S, Termote JL, Bellnick P. Comparison of effective doses for low-dose MDCT and radiographic examination of sinuses in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184 : 1611-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Lee JN, Han WJ, Kim EK. Absorbed and effective dose from newly developed cone beam computed tomography in Korea. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2007; 37 : 93-102.   과학기술학회마을
27 Philipp MO, Funovics MA, Mann FA, Herneth AM, Fuchsjaeger MH, Grabenwoeger F, et al. Four-channel multidetector CT in facial fractures: Do we need 2$\times$0.5 mm collimation? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180 : 1707-13.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Bonel HM, Jager L, Frei KA, Galiano S, Srivastav SK, Flohr T, et al. Optimization of MDCT of the wrist to achieve diagnostic image quality with minimum radiation exposure. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185 : 647-54.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Cohnen M, Fischer H, Hamacher J, Lins E, Kotter R, Modder U. CT of the head by use of reduced current and kilovoltage: relationship between image quality and dose reduction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000; 21 : 1654-60.
30 Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Araki M, Iwai K, Sawada K, Akiyama Y. Comparison of image performance between cone-beam computed tomography for dental use and four-row multidetector helical CT. J Oral Sci 2006; 48 : 27-34.   DOI   ScienceOn