Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Convex triangular vs. cylindrical field of view: how does the shape of the FOV affect radiation dose?

  • Research
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To compare the dosimetry between convex triangular fields of view (FOV) and similar dimension cylindrical FOVs of two cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) models.

Methods

Optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) were placed in fiducial anatomical locations in an anthropomorphic phantom representing an adult head male for dosimetry scans. Convex triangular FOVs (100 × 80 mm/maxilla-mandible; 100 × 50 mm mandible; 100 × 50 mm/maxilla) from Veraviewepocs 3D R100 (J. Morita, Kyoto, Japan) (R100) and Veraview® X800 (J. Morita, Kyoto, Japan) (X800) and cylindrical FOVs from R100 and X800 (80 × 80 mm/maxilla-mandible; 80 × 50 mm/mandible; 80 × 50 mm/maxilla) were obtained, resulting in 12 different scan protocols. Equivalent doses for each relevant organ/tissue and the effective dose for each protocol were calculated. Mean effective doses were compared by the two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s post hoc test to evaluate the effect of the FOV and device (α = 0.05).

Results

The effective doses ranged between 69 and 324 μSv for the convex triangular FOVs and 76 and 332 μSv for the cylindrical FOVs. Convex triangular FOVs from the R100 device had effective doses 2.3 to 15.3% lower than their corresponding cylindrical FOVs with similar height (p < 0.05), and that difference ranged between 8.8 and 11.8% for the X800 device (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Convex triangular fields of view delivered slightly lower effective doses than the cylindrical fields of view of similar dimensions in the R100 and X800 CBCT devices.

Clinical relevance

Understanding the influence of the image geometry formation in effective dose allows optimization to reduce patient dose.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ICRP (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37(2-4):1–332

    Google Scholar 

  2. ICRP (2015) Radiological protection in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). ICRP Publication 129. Ann ICRP 44(1):9–127

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lurie A, Kantor M (2020) Contemporary radiation protection in dentistry: recommendations of National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Report No. 177 - PubMed. J Am Dent Assoc 151(10):716–719.e3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. FDI World Dental Federation (2014) FDI policy statement on radiation safety in dentistry: adopted by the FDI General Assembly. Int Dent J 64(6):289–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. European Commission (2012) Radiation Protection 172. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillo-facial radiology. Evidence-based guidelines. [Internet]. Luxembourg City, Luxembourg: European Commission Directorate for Energy; http://www.sedentexct.eu/files/radiation_protection_172.pdf

  6. Oenning AC, Jacobs R, Salmon B, DIMITRA Research Group (2021) ALADAIP, beyond ALARA and towards personalized optimization for paediatric cone beam CT. Int J Paediatr Dent 12. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12797

  7. Gaêta-Araujo H, Alzoubi T, Vasconcelos KF, Orhan K, Pauwels R, Casselman JW, Jacobs R (2020) Cone-beam computed tomography in dentomaxillofacial radiology: a two-decade overview. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 49(8):20200145. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20200145

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Kiljunen T, Kaasalainen T, Suomalainen A, Kortesniemi M (2015) Dental cone beam CT: a review. Phys Med 31:844–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.09.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rottke D, Dreger J, Sawada K, Honda K, Schulze D (2018) Comparison of manual and dose reduction modes of a MORITA R100 CBCT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 47:20180009

    Google Scholar 

  10. Griffiths D, Culpin D (1975) Pi-optimal polygons. Math Gaz 59:165–175 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3617699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pauwels R, Beinsbergera J, Collaertb B, Theodorakouc C, Rogerse J et al (2012) Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 81:267–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cascante-Sequeira D, Coelho-Silva F, Rosado LPL, Freitas DQ, de-Azevedo-Vaz SL, Haiter-Neto F (2022) Comparison of the expression of the volumetric alteration artifact in cylindrical and triangular fields of view in two cone-beam computed tomography devices. Clin Oral Investig 26: 1025–1033.

  13. Cascante-Sequeira D, Coelho-Silva F, Lopes Rosado LP, Lucca LV, Queiroz Freitas D, Lins de-Azevedo-Vaz S, et al. (2023) Does cone-beam CT convex triangular field of view influence the image shape distortion of high-density materials? Dentomaxillofac Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20230029

  14. Cascante-Sequeira D, Fontenele RC, Martins LAC, Brasil DM, Oliveira ML, Freitas DQ et al (2023) Does the shape of the field-of-view influence the magnitude of artefacts from high-density materials in cone-beam computed tomography? Dentomaxillofac Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20230147

  15. Ludlow JB, Walker C (2013) Assessment of phantom dosimetry and image quality of i-CAT FLX cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144:802–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.07.013

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Pauwels R, Zhang G, Theodorakou C, Walker A, Bosmans H et al (2014) Effective radiation dose and eye lens dose in dental cone beam CT: effect of field of view and angle of rotation. Br J Radiol 87:1042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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(1):106–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson DB et al (2015) Effective dose of dental CBCT—a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 44:20140197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Okasaki T, Hayashi H, Takegami K, Okino H, Kimoto N et al (2015) Fundamental study of nanoDot OSL dosimeters for entrance skin dose measurement in diagnostic X-ray examinations. J Radiat Protect Res 41(3):229–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Akselrod MS, BØtter-Jensen L, SWS MK (2007) Optically stimulated luminescence and its use in medical dosimetry. Radiat Meas 41:7899

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jursinic PA (2007) Characterization of optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters, OSLDs, for clinical dosimetric measurements. Med Phys 34(12):4594–4604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The first author is grateful to the University of Costa Rica for funding his postgraduate studies.

Funding

The first author’s postgraduate studies are funded by a scholarship given by the Universidad de Costa Rica. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Brazil

    Deivi Cascante-Sequeira & Francisco Haiter-Neto

  2. Department of Diagnosis & Oral Health, University of Louisville School of Dentistry, Louisville, KY, USA

    Christiano Oliveira-Santos, Danieli Moura Brasil, Gustavo M. Santaella & William C. Scarfe

  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA

    Christine Swanson & Megan Blackburn

Authors
  1. Deivi Cascante-Sequeira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christiano Oliveira-Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Danieli Moura Brasil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gustavo M. Santaella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christine Swanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Megan Blackburn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. William C. Scarfe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Francisco Haiter-Neto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design and assume full responsibility for its content. Data acquisition was performed by D.C.-S. and C.d.O.-S.; analysis and interpretation of data for the work were done by D.C.-S., C.d.O.-S., D.M.B., G.M.S., C.S., M.B., W.S., and F.H.-N. The first draft of the manuscript was written by D.C.-S., and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deivi Cascante-Sequeira.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cascante-Sequeira, D., Oliveira-Santos, C., Brasil, D.M. et al. Convex triangular vs. cylindrical field of view: how does the shape of the FOV affect radiation dose?. Clin Oral Invest 27, 7881–7888 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-05380-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-05380-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation