Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

MSCT versus CBCT: evaluation of high-resolution acquisition modes for dento-maxillary and skull-base imaging

  • Computed Tomography
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Our aim was to conduct a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of high-resolution skull-bone imaging for dentistry and otolaryngology using different architectures of recent X-ray computed tomography systems.

Material and methods

Three multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) systems and one Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) system were used in this study. All apparatuses were tested with installed acquisition modes and proprietary reconstruction software enabling high-resolution bone imaging. Quantitative analyses were performed with small fields of view with the preclinical vmCT phantom, which permits to measure spatial resolution, geometrical accuracy, linearity and homogeneity. Ten operators performed visual qualitative analyses on the vmCT phantom images, and on dry human skull images.

Results

Quantitative analysis showed no significant differences between protocols in terms of linearity and geometric accuracy. All MSCT systems present a better homogeneity than the CBCT. Both quantitative and visual analyses demonstrate that CBCT acquisitions are not better than the collimated helical MSCT mode.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate that current high-resolution MSCT protocols could exceed the performance of a previous generation CBCT system for spatial resolution and image homogeneity.

Key Points

• Quantitative evaluation is a prerequisite for comparison of imaging equipment.

• Bone imaging quality could be objectively assessed with a phantom and dry skull.

• The current MSCT shows better image quality than a dental CBCT system.

• CBCT remains a work-in-progress technology.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CBCT:

Cone-beam computed tomography

CT:

Computed tomography

FBP:

Filtered back projection

FOV:

Field of view

FPD:

Flat panel detector

MSCT:

Multi-slice computed tomography

MTF:

Modulation transfer function

ROI:

Regions of interest

SD:

Standard deviation

VOI:

Volumes of interest

References

  1. Desikan RS, James YC (2014) Imaging of temporal bone trauma. Oper Tech Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 25:110–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fuchs TO, Kachelriess M, Kalender WA (2000) System performance of multislice spiral computed tomography. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 19:63–70

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mahesh M, Cody DD (2007) Physics of cardiac imaging with multiple-row detector CT. Radiographics 27:1495–1509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hassan A, Nazir SA, Alkaghi H (2011) Technical challenges of coronary CT angiography: today and tomorrow. Eur J Radiol 79:161–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Miracle AC, Mukherji SK (2009) Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 1: physical principles. Am J Neuroradiol 30:1088–1095

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Miracle AC, Mukherji SK (2009) Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 2: clinical applications. Am J Neuroradiol 30:1285–1292

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Du LY, Umoh J, Nikolov NH, Pollmann SI, Lee TY, Holdsworth DW (2007) A quality assurance phantom for the performance evaluation of volumetric micro-CT systems. Phys Med Biol 52:7087–7108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Droege RT (1983) A quality assurance protocol for CT scanners. Radiology 146:244–246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Droege RT, Morin RL (1982) A practical method to measure the MTF of CT scanners. Med Phys 9:758–760

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Holdsworth DW, Drangova M, Fenster A (1993) A high-resolution XRII-based quantitative volume CT scanner. Med Phys 20:449–462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Le Minor JM, Billmann F, Vetter JM, Ludes B (2009) Anatomie(s) & pathologie(s): Les collections morphologiques de la faculté de médecine de Strasbourg, 1st edn. ID L’Édition, Bernardswiller

    Google Scholar 

  12. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, Souza PC, Martens W, Shahbazian M, Alonso A, Lambrichts I (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 

  13. Carrino JA, Al Muhit A, Zbijewski W, Thawait GK, Stayman JW, Packard N, Senn R, Yang D, Foos DH, Yorkston J, Siewerdsen JH (2014) Dedicated cone-beam CT system for extremity imaging. Radiology 270:816–824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A, Bosmans H, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R, Horner K (2012) Comparison of spatial and contrast resolution for cone-beam computed tomography scanners. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 114:127–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hofmann E, Schmid M, Sedlmair M, Banckwitz R, Hirschfelder U, Lell M (2014) Comparative study of image quality and radiation dose of cone beam and low-dose multislice computed tomography–an in-vitro investigation. Clin Oral Investig 18:301–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Watanabe H, Honda E, Tetsumura A, Kurabayashi T (2011) 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 77:397–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dong X, Petrongolo M, Niu T, Zhu L (2013) Low-dose and scatter-free cone-beam CT imaging using a stationary beam blocker in a single scan: phantom studies. Comput Math Methods Med 2013:637614

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S, Suetens P, Marchal G, Sanderink G, Jacobs R (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 

  19. Reitz I, Hesse BM, Nill S, Tücking T, Oelfke U (2009) Enhancement of image quality with a fast iterative scatter and beam hardening correction method for kV CBCT. Z Med Phys 19:158–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors are grateful to Drs J.-L. Dietemann, A. Gangi, M. Ohana, C. Roy, F. Veillon, for access to the different devices. The authors gratefully acknowledge all technologists from the University Hospital of Strasbourg who participated in this study. Authors warmly thank General Electric for the loan of the phantom used in this study.

The scientific guarantor of this publication is P.Choquet. 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. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was not required because no living subjects were used in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Imagerie Préclinique-UF6237, Pôle d’imagerie, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    Jean-Philippe Dillenseger, Jean-François Matern, Christian Goetz, André Constantinesco & Philippe Choquet

  2. Icube, équipe MMB, CNRS, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    Jean-Philippe Dillenseger, Christian Goetz, Jean-Marie Le Minor & Philippe Choquet

  3. Fédération de Médecine Translationnelle de Strasbourg, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    Jean-Philippe Dillenseger, Jean-François Matern, Catherine-Isabelle Gros, Fabien Bornert, Christian Goetz, Jean-Marie Le Minor & Philippe Choquet

  4. Faculté de Chirurgie Dentaire, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    Catherine-Isabelle Gros & Fabien Bornert

  5. Institut d’Anatomie Normale, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    Jean-Marie Le Minor

  6. Imagerie Préclinique, Biophysique et Médecine Nucléaire, Hôpital de Hautepierre, 1 Av. Molière, 67098, Strasbourg Cedex, France

    Philippe Choquet

Authors
  1. Jean-Philippe Dillenseger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-François Matern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Catherine-Isabelle Gros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fabien Bornert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christian Goetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jean-Marie Le Minor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. André Constantinesco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Philippe Choquet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe Choquet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dillenseger, JP., Matern, JF., Gros, CI. et al. MSCT versus CBCT: evaluation of high-resolution acquisition modes for dento-maxillary and skull-base imaging. Eur Radiol 25, 505–515 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3439-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3439-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation