Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Performance of cone-beam computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography in diagnostic imaging of the midface: A comparative study on Phantom and cadaver head scans

  • Head and Neck
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) regarding radiation, resolution, image noise, and image quality.

Methods

CBCT and 256-MDCT were compared based on three scan protocols: Standard-dose (≈24 mGy), reduced-dose (≈9 mGy), and low-dose (≈4 mGy). MDCT images were acquired in standard- and high-resolution mode (HR-MDCT) and reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR). Spatial resolution in linepairs (lp) and objective image noise (OIN) were assessed using dedicated phantoms. Image quality was assessed in scans of 25 cadaver heads using a Likert scale.

Results

OIN was markedly higher in FBP-MDCT when compared to CBCT. IR lowered the OIN to comparable values in standard-mode MDCT only. CBCT provided a resolution of 13 lp/cm at standard-dose and 11 lp/cm at reduced-dose vs. 11 lp/cm and 10 lp/cm in HR-MDCT. Resolution of 10 lp/cm was observed for both devices using low-dose settings. Quality scores of MDCT and CBCT did not differ at standard-dose (CBCT, 3.4; MDCT, 3.3-3.5; p > 0.05). Using reduced- and low-dose protocols, CBCT was superior (reduced-dose, 3.2 vs. 2.8; low dose, 3.0 vs. 2.3; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Using the low-dose protocol, the assessed CBCT provided better objective and subjective image quality and equality in resolution. Similar image quality, but better resolution using CBCT was observed at higher exposure settings.

Key Points

• The assessed CBCT device provided better image quality at lower doses.

• Objective and subjective image quality were comparable using higher exposure settings.

• CBCT showed superior spatial resolution in standard-dose and reduced-dose settings.

• Modern noise-reducing tools are used in CBCT devices currently.

• MDCT should be preferred for assessment of soft-tissue injuries and oncologic imaging.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Makdissi J (2013) Cone beam CT in orthodontics: the current picture. Int Orthod 11:1–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Castro IO, Alencar AHG, Valladares-Neto J, Estrela C (2013) Apical root resorption due to orthodontic treatment detected by cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 83:196–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wang Y, He S, Guo Y et al (2013) Accuracy of volumetric measurement of simulated root resorption lacunas based on cone beam computed tomography. Orthod Craniofacial Res. doi:10.1111/ocr.12016

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ozdemir F, Tozlu M, Germec-Cakan D (2013) Cortical bone thickness of the alveolar process measured with cone-beam computed tomography in patients with different facial types. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 143:190–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Koskinen SK, Haapamäki VV, Salo J et al (2013) CT arthrography of the wrist using a novel, mobile, dedicated extremity cone-beam CT (CBCT). Skelet Radiol 42:649–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Truong MT, Hirsch AE, Kovalchuk N et al (2013) Cone-beam computed tomography image guided therapy to evaluate lumpectomy cavity variation before and during breast radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 14:4243

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Isaacson KG, Thom AR, Horner K, Whaites E (2008) Orthodontic radiographs - guidelines, 3rd edn. British Orthodontic Society, London

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kapila S, Conley RS, Harrell WE (2011) The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 40:24–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Harrell WE, Hatcher DC, Bolt RL (2002) In search of anatomic truth: 3-dimensional digital modeling and the future of orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 122:325–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Heiland M, Schulze D, Blake F, Schmelzle R (2005) Intraoperative imaging of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures using a 3D C-arm system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34:369–375

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pohlenz P, Blake F, Blessmann M et al (2009) Intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery using a C-arm prototype: first clinical experiences after treatment of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:515–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Käser Y et al (2009) Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 38:367–378

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E et al (2009) Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 71:461–468

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, Adam G (2004) Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4- and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:83–86

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B et al (2010) A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT) Part I. On subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol 75:265–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Kameoka S et al (2007) Comparison of image validity between cone beam computed tomography for dental use and multidetector row helical computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36:465–471

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kyriakou Y, Kolditz D, Langner O et al (2011) Digital volume tomography (DVT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT): an objective examination of dose and image quality. Röfo 183:144–153

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hofmann E, Schmid M, Sedlmair M et al (2013) Comparative study of image quality and radiation dose of cone beam and low-dose multislice computed tomography - an in-vitro investigation. Clin Oral Investig. doi:10.1007/s00784-013-0948-9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Willemink MJ, de Jong PA, Leiner T et al (2013) Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography Part 1: technical principles. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2765-y

    Google Scholar 

  20. IEC 60601-2-44 Edition 3.1 (2012-09). X-ray Equipment for Computed Tomography

  21. Pauwels R, Nackaerts O, Bellaiche N et al (2013) Variability of dental cone beam CT grey values for density estimations. Br J Radiol 86:20120135

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Kemper J, Regier M, Bansmann PM et al (2007) Multidetector CT urography: experimental analysis of radiation dose reduction in an animal model. Eur Radiol 17:2318–2324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wedegärtner U, Lorenzen M, Nagel HD et al (2004) Image quality of thin- and thick-slice MSCT reconstructions in low-contrast objects (liver lesions) with equal doses. Röfo 176:1676–1682

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gurung J, Khan MF, Maataoui A et al (2005) Multislice CT of the pelvis: dose reduction with regard to image quality using 16-row CT. Eur Radiol 15:1898–1905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee WJ, Chong S, Seo JS, Shim HJ (2012) Transthoracic fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the lungs using a C-arm cone-beam CT system: diagnostic accuracy and post-procedural complications. Br J Radiol 85:e217–e222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Kokkonen HT, Suomalainen J-S, Joukainen A et al (2014) In vivo diagnostics of human knee cartilage lesions using delayed CBCT arthrography. J Orthop Res 32:403–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hatcher DC (2012) CT & CBCT imaging: assessment of the orbits. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 24:537–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Heiland M, Pohlenz P, Blessmann M et al (2007) Cervical soft tissue imaging using a mobile CBCT scanner with a flat panel detector in comparison with corresponding CT and MRI data sets. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104:814–820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Coppenrath E, Draenert F, Lechel U et al (2008) Cross-sectional imaging in dentomaxillofacial diagnostics: dose comparison of dental MSCT and NewTom 9000 DVT. Röfo 180:396–401

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M (2008) Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:106–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kalender WA, Buchenau S, Deak P et al (2008) Technical approaches to the optimisation of CT. Phys Med 24:71–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schulze R (2013) s2k-Leitlinie dentale digitale Volumentomographie [Internet, cited 2014 Apr 2]. Available from: http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/083-005.html

  33. Schneider M (2013) Radiologische Bildgebung in der Zahnheilkunde. Zahnmedizin up2date 7:477–501. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1325101

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is PD Dr. med. Marc Regier. The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Dr. HD Nagel is the chairman of Dr. Nagel – Science and Technology in Radiology, which is a consultancy specialized on medical imaging and radiation protection. Philips Healthcare, the vendor of the evaluated MDCT device and the used iterative reconstruction tool is a client of Dr Nagel. The contributions of Dr. Nagel to the present study were technical design and technical supervision. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. Gerhard Schön, Department of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg, Germany kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript. Institutional Review Board approval was not required because the study is based on phantom and cadaver head scans only. As all body donors signed an informed consent to be at free disposal for student’s education and scientific issues after their death, the study was performed respecting the Declaration of Helsinki. The respective form can be seen at the following URL: http://www.uke.de/institute/zellulaere-neurobiologie/downloads/institut-anatomie-neurobiologie/EK-Formular2013eineSeite.pdf. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects in this study. No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: prospective, experimental, performed at one institution.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Simon Veldhoen

    Present address: Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Würzburg, Oberdürrbacher Straße 6, D-97080, Würzburg, Germany

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Hamburg, Martinistrasse 52, D-20246, Hamburg, Germany

    Simon Veldhoen, F. O. Henes, G. Adam & M. Regier

  2. Department of Oral- and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Maximilian Schöllchen, H. Hanken, C. Precht & M. Heiland

  3. Department of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    G. Schön

  4. Science and Technology for Radiology, Buchholz, Germany

    H. D. Nagel

  5. Institute of Anatomy, University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    U. Schumacher

Authors
  1. Simon Veldhoen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maximilian Schöllchen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Hanken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Precht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. F. O. Henes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. Schön
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H. D. Nagel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. U. Schumacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. M. Heiland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. G. Adam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. M. Regier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Veldhoen.

Additional information

Simon Veldhoen and Maximilian Schöllchen contributed equally to this work.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 14 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 12 kb)

ESM 3

(PDF 14 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Veldhoen, S., Schöllchen, M., Hanken, H. et al. Performance of cone-beam computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography in diagnostic imaging of the midface: A comparative study on Phantom and cadaver head scans. Eur Radiol 27, 790–800 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4387-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4387-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation