Oral Radiology

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 237–244 | Cite as

Impact of statistical reconstruction and compressed sensing algorithms on projection data elimination during X-ray CT image reconstruction

  • Bing-Yu Sun
  • Yoshihiko HayakawaEmail author
Original Article



To examine the effect of incomplete, or total elimination of, projection data on computed tomography (CT) images subjected to statistical reconstruction and/or compressed sensing algorithms.


Multidetector row CT images were used. The algebraic reconstruction technique (ART) and the maximum likelihood-expectation maximization (ML-EM) method were compared with filtered back-projection (FBP). Effects on reconstructed images were studied when the projection data of 360° (360 projections) were decreased to 180 or 90 projections by reducing the collection angle or thinning the image data. The total variation (TV) regularization method using compressed sensing was applied to images processed by the ART. Image noise was subjectively evaluated using the root-mean-square error and signal-to-noise ratio.


When projection data were reduced by one-half or three-quarters, ART and ML-EM produced better image quality than FBP. Both ART and ML-EM resulted in high quality at a spread of 90 projections over 180° rotation. Computational loading was high for statistical reconstruction, but not for ML-EM, compared with the ART. TV regularization made it possible to use only 36 projections while still achieving acceptable image quality.


Incomplete projection data—accomplished by reducing the angle to collect image data or thinning the projection data without reducing the angle of rotation over which it is collected—made it possible to reduce the radiation dose while retaining image quality with statistical reconstruction algorithms and/or compressed sensing. Despite heavier computational calculation loading, these methods should be considered for reducing radiation doses.


Computed tomography  X-ray Image reconstruction Statistical reconstruction Incomplete projection data Compressed sensing 



This study was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research, #15K11065, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) of Japan, 2015–2017.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Bing-Yu Sun and Yoshihiko Hayakawa declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human rights statement

This study was approved by our institutional Review Board (IRB), which gave endorsement to human rights statements and informed consent in the study (IRB Approval No. 1002, Kitami Institute of Technology).

Informed consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients to be included in the study. Additional informed consent was obtained from all patients for whom identifying information is included in this article.

Animal rights statements

This article does not contain any studies with animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Pan X, Sidky EY, Vannier M. Why do commercial CT scanners still employ traditional, filtered back-projection for image reconstruction? Inverse Probl. 2009;25:1230009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Silva AC, Lawder HJ, Hara A, Kujak J, Pavlicek W. Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:191–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fleischmann D, Boas FE. Computed tomography—old ideas and new technology. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:510–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beister M, Kolditz D, Kalender WA. Iterative reconstruction methods in X-ray CT. Phys Med. 2012;28:94–108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rashed EA, Kudo H. Statistical image reconstruction from limited projection data with intensity priors. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:2039–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rashed EA, Kudo H. Probabilistic atlas prior for CT image reconstruction. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2016;128:119–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmid AI, Uder M, Lell MM. Reaching for better image quality and lower radiation dose in head and neck CT: advanced modeled and sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction in combination with tube voltage adaptation. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017;46:20160131.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Widmann G, Bischel A, Stratis A, Bosmans H, Jacobs R, Gassner EM, et al. Spatial and contrast resolution of ultralow dose dentomaxillofacial CT imaging using iterative reconstruction technology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017;46:20160452.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berrington de González A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet. 2004;363:345–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donoho DL. Compressed sensing. IEEE Trans Inf Theory. 2006;52:1289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baraniuk RG, Candes E, Elad M, Ma Y. Special Issue: applications of sparse representation and compressive sensing. Proc IEEE. 2010;98:906–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sidky EY, Pan X. Image reconstruction in circular cone-beam computed tomography by constrained, total-variation minimization. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:4777–807.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kudo H, Suzuki T, Rashed EA. Image reconstruction for sparse-view CT and interior CT: introduction to compressed sensing and differentiated backprojection. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2013;3:147–61.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kondo A, Hayakawa Y, Dong J, Honda A. Iterative correction applied to streak artifact reduction in an X-ray computed tomography image of the dento-alveolar region. Oral Radiol. 2010;26:61–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dong J, Kondo A, Abe K, Hayakawa Y. Successive iterative restoration applied to streak artifact reduction in X-ray CT image of dento-alveolar region. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2011;6:635–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dong J, Hayakawa Y, Kannenberg S, Kober C. Metal-induced streak artifact reduction using iterative reconstruction algorithms in X-ray computed tomography image of the dentoalveolar region. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115:e63–e73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dong J, Hayakawa Y, Kober C. Statistical iterative reconstruction for streak artefact reduction when using multidetector CT to image the dento-alveolar structures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014;43:20130373.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sidky EY, Kao CM, Pan X. Accurate image reconstruction from few-views and limited-angle data in divergent-beam CT. J X-ray Sci Technol. 2006;14:119–39.
  19. 19.
    Siltanen S, Kolehmainen V, Järvenpää S, Kaipio JP, Koistinen P, Lassas M, et al. Statistical inversion for medical X-ray tomography with few radiographs: I. General theory. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:1437–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kolehmainen V, Siltanen S, Järvenpää S, Kaipio JP, Koistinen P, Lassas M, et al. Statistical inversion for medical X-ray tomography with few radiographs: II. Application to dental radiology. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:1465–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rose S, Andersen MS, Sidky EY, Pan X. Noise properties of CT images reconstructed by use of constrained total-variation, data-discrepancy minimization. Med Phys. 2015;42:2690–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dong J, Kudo H. Proposal of compressed sensing using nonlinear sparsifying transform for CT image reconstruction. Med Imaging Technol. 2016;34:235–44.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dong J, Kudo H. Accelerated algorithm for compressed sensing using nonlinear sparsifying transform in CT image reconstruction. Med Imaging Technol. 2017;35:63–73.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yu W, Wang C, Huang M. Edge-preserving reconstruction from sparse projections of limited-angle computed tomography using ℓ0-regularized gradient prior. Rev Sci Instrum. 2017;88:043703.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Course of Medical Engineering, Graduate School of EngineeringKitami Institute of TechnologyKitamiJapan
  2. 2.Department of Engineering on Intelligent Machines and Biomechanics, School of Regional Innovation and Social Design Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringKitami Institute of TechnologyKitamiJapan

Personalised recommendations