Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5624/isd.2017.47.2.75

Application of a newly developed software program for image quality assessment in cone-beam computed tomography  

de Oliveira, Marcus Vinicius Linhares (Department of Health Technology and Biology, Federal Institute of Bahia)
Santos, Antonio Carvalho (Department of Complementary Sciences, Coimbra Health School, Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra)
Paulo, Graciano (Department of Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy, Coimbra Health School, Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra)
Campos, Paulo Sergio Flores (Department of Interactive Processes of Organs and Systems, Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Bahia)
Santos, Joana (Department of Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy, Coimbra Health School, Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra)
Publication Information
Imaging Science in Dentistry / v.47, no.2, 2017 , pp. 75-86 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to apply a newly developed free software program, at low cost and with minimal time, to evaluate the quality of dental and maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Materials and Methods: A polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) phantom, CQP-IFBA, was scanned in 3 CBCT units with 7 protocols. A macro program was developed, using the free software ImageJ, to automatically evaluate the image quality parameters. The image quality evaluation was based on 8 parameters: uniformity, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), noise, the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), spatial resolution, the artifact index, geometric accuracy, and low-contrast resolution. Results: The image uniformity and noise depended on the protocol that was applied. Regarding the CNR, high-density structures were more sensitive to the effect of scanning parameters. There were no significant differences between SNR and CNR in centered and peripheral objects. The geometric accuracy assessment showed that all the distance measurements were lower than the real values. Low-contrast resolution was influenced by the scanning parameters, and the 1-mm rod present in the phantom was not depicted in any of the 3 CBCT units. Smaller voxel sizes presented higher spatial resolution. There were no significant differences among the protocols regarding artifact presence. Conclusion: This software package provided a fast, low-cost, and feasible method for the evaluation of image quality parameters in CBCT.
Keywords
Image Quality; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Quality Control; Quality Assurance;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Cone beam CT of the head and neck, part 2: clinical applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30: 1285-92.   DOI
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 Janner SF, Jeger FB, Lussi A, Bornstein MM. Precision of endodontic working length measurements: a pilot investigation comparing cone-beam computed tomography scanning with standard measurement techniques. J Endod 2011; 37: 1046-51.   DOI
4 Plachtovics M, Goczan J, Nagy K. The effect of calibration and detector temperature on the reconstructed cone beam computed tomography image quality: a study for the workflow of the iCAT Classic equipment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015; 119: 473-80.   DOI
5 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.   DOI
6 Palomo JM, Rao PS, Hans MG. Influence of CBCT exposure conditions on radiation dose. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2008; 105: 773-82.   DOI
7 Guldner C, Ningo A, Voigt J, Diogo I, Heinrichs J, Weber R, et al. Potential of dosage reduction in cone-beam-computed tomography (CBCT) for radiological diagnostics of the paranasal sinuses. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 270: 1307-15.   DOI
8 Tyndall DA, Rathore S. Cone-beam CT diagnostic applications: caries, periodontal bone assessment, and endodontic applications. Dent Clin North Am 2008; 52: 825-41.   DOI
9 SEDENTEXCT Guideline Development Panel. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence based guidelines. Luxembourg: European Commission Directorate-General for Energy; 2012.
10 European Commission. Radiation Protection 136. European guidelines on radiation protection in dental radiology. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission; 2004.
11 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.   DOI
12 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.
13 Carter L, Farman AG, Geist J, Scarfe WC, Angelopoulos C, Nair MK, et al. American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology executive opinion statement on performing and interpreting diagnostic cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106: 561-2.   DOI
14 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 Endod 2014; 118: 603-11.   DOI
15 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.   DOI
16 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 Endod 2012; 114: 127-35.   DOI
17 Reeves TE, Mah P, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam CT: a clinical application. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 500-8.   DOI
18 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.   DOI
19 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.   DOI
20 Donini B, Rivetti S, Lanconelli N, Bertolini M. Free software for performing physical analysis of systems for digital radiography and mammography. Med Phys 2014; 41: 051903.   DOI
21 Bryant JA, Drage NA, Richmond S. Study of the scan uniformity from an i-CAT cone beam computed tomography dental imaging system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 365-74.   DOI
22 Lukat TD, Perschbacher SE, Pharoah MJ, Lam EW. The effects of voxel size on cone beam computed tomography images of the temporomandibular joints. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015; 119: 229-37.   DOI
23 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
24 Bechara B, Moore W, McMahan C, Noujeim M. Metal artefact reduction with cone beam CT: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 248-53.   DOI
25 Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Sanderink G. Accuracy of threedimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31: 129-34.   DOI
26 Gribel BF, Gribel MN, Frazao DC, McNamara JA Jr, Manzi FR. Accuracy and reliability of craniometric measurements on lateral cephalometry and 3D measurements on CBCT scans. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 26-35.   DOI
27 Bechara B, Alex McMahan C, Moore WS, Noujeim M, Teixeira FB, Geha H. Cone beam CT scans with and without artefact reduction in root fracture detection of endodontically treated teeth. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20120245.   DOI
28 Bechara B, McMahan C, Geha H, Noujeim M. Evaluation of a cone beam CT artefact reduction algorithm. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 422-8.   DOI
29 Brullmann D, Schulze RK. Spatial resolution in CBCT machines for dental/maxillofacial applications-what do we know today? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140204.   DOI
30 Suomalainen A, Vehmas T, Kortesniemi M, Robinson S, Peltola J. Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 10-7.   DOI