Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of ultra-low doses, ASIR and MBIR on density and noise levels of MDCT images of dental implant sites

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

Abstract

Objectives

Differences in noise and density values in MDCT images obtained using ultra-low doses with FBP, ASIR, and MBIR may possibly affect implant site density analysis. The aim of this study was to compare density and noise measurements recorded from dental implant sites using ultra-low doses combined with FBP, ASIR, and MBIR.

Methods

Cadavers were scanned using a standard protocol and four low-dose protocols. Scans were reconstructed using FBP, ASIR-50, ASIR-100, and MBIR, and either a bone or standard reconstruction kernel. Density (mean Hounsfield units [HUs]) of alveolar bone and noise levels (mean standard deviation of HUs) was recorded from all datasets and measurements were compared by paired t tests and two-way ANOVA with repeated measures.

Results

Significant differences in density and noise were found between the reference dose/FBP protocol and almost all test combinations. Maximum mean differences in HU were 178.35 (bone kernel) and 273.74 (standard kernel), and in noise, were 243.73 (bone kernel) and 153.88 (standard kernel).

Conclusions

Decreasing radiation dose increased density and noise regardless of reconstruction technique and kernel. The effect of reconstruction technique on density and noise depends on the reconstruction kernel used.

Key Points

• Ultra-low-dose MDCT protocols allowed more than 90 % reductions in dose.

• Decreasing the dose generally increased density and noise.

• Effect of IRT on density and noise varies with reconstruction kernel.

• Accuracy of low-dose protocols for interpretation of bony anatomy not known.

• Effect of low doses on accuracy of computer-aided design models unknown.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ASIR:

Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction

MBIR:

Model-based iterative reconstruction

FBP:

Filtered backprojection

References

  1. Horner K (2013) Cone-beam computed tomography: time for an evidence-based approach. Prim Dent J 2:22–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R (2011) Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:873–879

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Turkyilmaz I, McGlumphy EA (2008) Influence of bone density on implant stability parameters and implant success: a retrospective clinical study. BMC Oral Health 8:32

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Turkyilmaz I, McGlumphy EA (2008) Is there a lower threshold value of bone density for early loading protocols of dental implants? J Oral Rehabil 35:775–781

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ikumi N, Tsutsumi S (2005) Assessment of correlation between computerized tomography values of the bone and cutting torque values at implant placement: a clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 20:253–260

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Merheb J, Van Assche N, Coucke W, Jacobs R, Naert I, Quirynen M (2010) Relationship between cortical bone thickness or computerized tomography-derived bone density values and implant stability. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:612–617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B et al (2005) Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. Quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 20:416–424

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Isoda K, Ayukawa Y, Tsukiyama Y, Sogo M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K (2012) Relationship between the bone density estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and the primary stability of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:832–836

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Beer A, Gahleitner A, Holm A, Tschabitscher M, Homolka P (2003) Correlation of insertion torques with bone mineral density from dental quantitative CT in the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 14:616–620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y et al (2010) A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part II: On 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol 75:270–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Primo B, Presotto A, de Oliveira H et al (2012) Accuracy assessment of prototypes produced using multi-slice and cone-beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:1291–1295

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Loubele M, Maes F, Schutyser F, Marchal G, Jacobs R, Suetens P (2006) 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 102:225–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD (2010) Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 39:323–335

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2008) Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Official records of the general assembly, sixty-third session, supplement No 46. United Nations, New York

  15. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC (2012) Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 113:817–826

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cordasco G, Portelli M, Militi A et al (2013) Low-dose protocol of the spiral CT in orthodontics: comparative evaluation of entrance skin dose with traditional X-ray techniques. Prog Orthod 14:24

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Jeong DK, Lee SC, Huh KH et al (2012) Comparison of effective dose for imaging of mandible between multi-detector CT and cone-beam CT. Imaging Sci Dent 42:65–70

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Widmann G, Dalla Torre D, Hoermann R et al (2015) Ultralow-dose computed tomography imaging for surgery of midfacial and orbital fractures using ASIR and MBIR. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44:441–446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ludlow J, Timothy R, Walker C et al (2015) Effective dose of dental CBCT-a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiol 44:20140197

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kyriakou Y, Kolditz D, Langner O, Krause J, Kalender W (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 

  21. Bulla S, Blanke P, Hassepass F et al (2012) Reducing the radiation dose for low-dose CT of the paranasal sinuses using iterative reconstruction: feasibility and image quality. Eur J Radiol 81:2246–2250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Silva AC, Lawder HJ, Hara A, Kujak J, Pavlicek W (2010) Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. Am J Roentgenol 194:191–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Molteni R (2013) Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 116:105–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. NIST (National Institute of Science and technology) (Last updated: May 19, 2015) Tables of x-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energy-absorption coefficients from 1 keV to 20 MeV for elements Z = 1 to 92 and 48 additional substances of dosimetric interest*. Available via http://www.nist.gov/pml/data/xraycoef/index.cfmJuly6th, 2015

  25. McHanwell S, Brenner E, Chirculescu A et al (2008) The legal and ethical framework governing Body Donation in Europe - A review of current practice and recommendations for good practice. Eur J Anat 12:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  26. Riederer B, Bolt S, Brenner E et al (2012) The legal and ethical framework governing Body Donation in Europe - 1st update on current practice. Eur J Anat 16:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  27. Platzer W, Putz R, Poisel S (1978) Ein neues Konservierungs- und Aufbewahrungssystem für anatomisches Material. Acta Anat (Basel) 102:60–67

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Homolka P, Gahleitner A, Kudler H, Nowotny R (2001) A simple method for estimating effective dose in dental CT. Conversion factors and calculation examples for a clinical low dose protocol. RoFo: Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin 173:558–562

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Todisco M, Trisi P (2005) Bone mineral density and bone histomorphometry are statistically related. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 20:898–904

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Loubele M, Van Assche N, Carpentier K et al (2008) 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 105:512–518

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hérin E, Gardavaud F, Chiaradia M et al (2015) Use of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction (MBIR) in reduced-dose CT for routine follow-up of patients with malignant lymphoma: dose savings, image quality and phantom study. European radiology:1–9

  32. Puchner SB, Ferencik M, Maurovich-Horvat P et al (2015) Iterative image reconstruction algorithms in coronary CT angiography improve the detection of lipid-core plaque–a comparison with histology. Eur Radiol 25:15–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hague CJ, Krowchuk N, Alhassan D et al (2014) Qualitative and quantitative assessment of smoking-related lung disease: effect of iterative reconstruction on low-dose computed tomographic examinations. J Thorac Imaging 29:350–356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Botsikas D, Stefanelli S, Boudabbous S, Toso S, Becker CD, Montet X (2014) Model-based iterative reconstruction versus adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in low-dose abdominal CT for urolithiasis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:336–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hoxworth JM, Lal D, Fletcher GP et al (2014) Radiation dose reduction in paranasal sinus CT using model-based iterative reconstruction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 35:644–649

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC, Kujak JL, Lawder HJ, Pavlicek W (2009) Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. Am J Roentgenol 193:764–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Schulz B, Beeres M, Bodelle B et al (2013) Performance of iterative image reconstruction in CT of the paranasal sinuses: a phantom study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 34:1072–1076

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Widmann G, Schullian P, Gassner E-M, Hoermann R, Bale R, Puelacher W (2015) Ultralow-dose CT of the craniofacial bone for navigated surgery using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and model-based iterative reconstruction: 2D and 3D image quality. Am J Roentgenol 204:563–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pauwels R, Silkosessak O, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H, Panmekiate S (2014) A pragmatic approach to determine the optimal kVp in cone beam CT: balancing contrast-to-noise ratio and radiation dose. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 43:20140059

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Van Dessel J, Huang Y, Depypere M, Rubira-Bullen I, Maes F, Jacobs R (2013) A comparative evaluation of cone beam CT and micro-CT on trabecular bone structures in the human mandible. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 42:20130145

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Lekholm U (1985) Tissue-integrated prosthesis: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Quintessence, Chicago, pp 199–209

    Google Scholar 

  42. Norton MR, Gamble C (2001) Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res 12:79–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Misch CE (2008) Contemporary implant dentistry. Mosby Incorporated, St. Louis

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ericsson I, Nilner K (2002) Early functional loading using Brånemark dental implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 22:9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Al-Ekrish AA (2014) Bone quality for implants. In: Tamimi D (ed) Specialty imaging dental implants. Elsevier, Altona, pp 1/30–31/37

    Google Scholar 

  46. Homolka P, Beer A, Birkfellner W et al (2002) Bone mineral density measurement with dental quantitative CT prior to dental implant placement in cadaver mandibles: pilot study. Radiology 224:247–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank individuals who donated their bodies and tissues for the advancement of education and research. The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Gerlig Widmann. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. Amal Ahmed Gaber Abd-Alhafez, MSc (private consultant) and Eidah Alenazi, MSc (Assistant Researcher, Statistics & Operations Research Department, Kind Saud University) kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript. Institutional review board approval was not required because the bodies used in the study were donated by people who had given their informed consent for their use for scientific and educational purposes prior to death and the study fulfilled all requirements necessary for studies on human cadavers according to the regulations of the Division of Clinical and Functional Anatomy, Medical University of Innsbruck. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in the following experimental studies: Widmann G. et al., Ultralow-dose computed tomography imaging for surgery of midfacial and orbital fractures using ASIR and MBIR. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2015. 44(4): p. 441–446, and Widmann, G. et al., Ultralow-Dose CT of the Craniofacial Bone for Navigated Surgery Using Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction and Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction: 2D and 3D Image Quality. American Journal of Roentgenology, 2015. 204(3): p. 563–569. Methodology: retrospective, experimental, multicenter study.

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Radiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

      Gerlig Widmann & Peter Schullian

    2. Department of Oral Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P. O. Box 56810, Riyadh, 11564, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

      Reema Al-Shawaf, Ra’ed Al-Sadhan & Asma’a A. Al-Ekrish

    3. Division of Clinical and Functional Anatomy, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

      Romed Hörmann

    Authors
    1. Gerlig Widmann
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Reema Al-Shawaf
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Peter Schullian
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Ra’ed Al-Sadhan
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Romed Hörmann
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. Asma’a A. Al-Ekrish
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Asma’a A. Al-Ekrish.

    Additional information

    Gerlig Widmann and Asma’a A. Al-Ekrish contributed equally to this work.

    Electronic supplementary material

    Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

    ESM 1

    (DOCX 95 kb)

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Widmann, G., Al-Shawaf, R., Schullian, P. et al. Effect of ultra-low doses, ASIR and MBIR on density and noise levels of MDCT images of dental implant sites. Eur Radiol 27, 2225–2234 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4588-8

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Revised:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4588-8

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation