Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative study of image quality and radiation dose of cone beam and low-dose multislice computed tomography - an in-vitro investigation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the image quality and dose exposition of different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and low-dose multislice spiral CT (MSCT) scanners.

Materials and methods

A human cadaver head was examined with three MSCT and five CBCT scanners. The radiation dose was measured using an Alderson RANDO phantom. Standard protocols were used to obtain the CBCT data. For the MSCT devices, the tube voltage and tube current were modified to obtain acceptable image quality while keeping the radiation dose as low as possible. The image quality of MSCT and CBCT devices was determined by examining the enamel–dentin and dentin–pulp interface and the periodontal ligament space of 22 teeth.

Results

Inter- and intra-observer agreement was found for the different groups of raters. CBCT systems were rated superior to MSCT devices in terms of image quality for all dental structures. The differences in image quality among the studied CBCT and MSCT scanner groups did not turn out to be significant but were significant between CBCT and MSCT devices. The organ dose varied considerably between the different CBCT and MSCT devices. The differences concerning the organ dose were notably pronounced in the area of the eye lens.

Conclusions

The tested devices exhibited significant differences with respect to the organ dose. The variance was particularly pronounced in the CBCT devices. With a dose exposition equal or lower than the CBCT, the image quality in the MSCT devices was judged to be significantly worse.

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. Kalender WA (2005) Computed tomography: fundamentals, system technology, image quality, applications, 2nd edn. Publicis, Erlangen

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lascala CA, Panella J, Marques MM (2004) Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-New Tom). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:291–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Holberg C, Steinhäuser S, Geis P, Rudzki-Janson I (2005) Cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics: benefits and limitations. J Orofac Orthop 66:434–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pauwels R et al (2011) Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images. Clin Oral Implants Res. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02382.x

  5. Coppenrath E, Draenert F, Lechel U, Veit R, Meindl T, Reiser M et al (2008) Schnittbildverfahren zur dentomaxillofacialen Diagnostik: dosisvergleich von Dental-MSCT und New Tom 9000 DVT. Fortschr Röntgenstr 180:396–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Periago D, Scarfe W, Moshiri M, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG (2008) Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. Angle Orthod 78:387–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Käser Y, Peltola J, Kortesniemi M (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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Arai Y, Tammisalo E, Iwai K, Hashimoto K, Shinoda K (1999) Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 28:245–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB (2006) Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3 G, i-Cat. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 35:219–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC (2008) Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examination: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculations. J Am Dent Assoc 139(9):1237–1243

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Dijck V, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S, Suetens P et al (2009) Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 71:461–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Okano T, Harata Y, Sugihara Y, Sakaino R, Tsuchida R, Iwai K et al (2009) Absorbed and effective doses from cone beam volumetric imaging for implant planning. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 38:79–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tsiklakis K, Donta C, Gavala S, Karayianni K, Kamenopoulou V, Hourdakis CJ (2005) Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose cone beam CT. Eur J Radiol 56(3):413–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L 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. Carrafiello G, Dizonno M, Colli V, Strocchi S, Taubert SP, Leonardi A et al (2010) Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. Radiol med 115:600–611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pauwels R, Theodorakou C, Walker A, Bosmans H, Jacobs R, Horner K, Bogaerts R, The SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium (2012) Dose distribution for dental cone beam CT and its implication for defining a dose index. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41(7):583–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Kameoka S, Akiyama Y, Honjoya T, Ejima K 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Loubele M, Maes F, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe WSC, Suetens P (2008) Comparative study of image quality for MSCT and CBCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial radiology applications. Radiat Prot Dosim 129:222–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kyriakou Y, Kolditz D, Langner O, Krause J, Kalender W (2010) Digital volume tomography (DVT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT): an objective examination of dose and image quality. Fortschr Röntgenstr 183:144–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fleiss JL, Cohen J (1973) The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. EPM 33:613–619

    Google Scholar 

  22. Janson H, Olsson U (2001) A measure of agreement for interval or nominal multivariate observations. EPM 61:277–289

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hollander M, Wolfe DA (1999) Nonparametric Statistical Methods, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 106:930–938

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hofmann E, Medelnik J, Fink M, Lell M, Hirschfelder U (2011) Three-dimensional volume tomographic study of the imaging accuracy of impacted teeth: MSCT and CBCT comparison—an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjr030

  27. Rustemeyer P, Streubühr U, Suttmoeller J (2004) Low-dose dental computed tomography: significant dose reduction without loss of image quality. Acta Radiol 45:847–853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Martini PT, Andreis IA (1998) A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging base on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 8:1558–1564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mah JK, Danforth RA, Bumann A, Hatcher D (2003) Radiation absorbed in maxillofacial imaging with a new dental computed tomography device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 96:508–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kobayashi K, Shimoda S, Nakagawa Y, Yamamoto A (2004) Accuracy in measurement of distance using limited cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:228–231

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y (2010) Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomography-derived surface models of different voxel sizes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137:16.e1–16.e6, discussion 16–7

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hirschfelder U (2008) Stellungsnahme: Radiologische 3D-Diagnostik in der Kieferothopädie (CT/DVT). J Orofac Orthoped 69:484–487

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A et al (2011) Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 81(2):267–271. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Swennen G, Schutyser F (2006) Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs. cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 130:410–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (2010) http://www.bfs.de/de/ion/wirkungen/grenzwerte.html

  36. Schulze R, Heil U, Groß DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, Schoemer E (2011) Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 40:265–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was financially supported by the Johannes und Frieda Marohn Foundation, Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. Further, the authors would like to thank Prof. Winfried Neuhuber and his staff at the Institute of Anatomy for the provision of the specimen. Our special thanks to the colleagues who helped us make the measurements for the CBCT devices and who advised us during the scans: Prof. Friedrich Neukam, Erlangen; Dr. Stephan Eulert, Bayreuth; Dr. Thomas Frank, Erlangen; Dr. Stefan Kleinmayer, Amberg; Dr. Jürgen Medelnik, Erlangen; Dr. Alexander von Moller, Bamberg; Dr. Eike Palluck, Bayreuth; Drs. Thomas Kuehnel and Frank Schmidt, Forchheim; and Dr. Gilbert Vanderborght, Fürth.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics and Orofacial Orthopedics, Zahnklinik 3 - Kieferorthopädie, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Glückstraße 11, 91054, Erlangen, Germany

    Elisabeth Hofmann & Ursula Hirschfelder

  2. Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Matthias Schmid

  3. Siemens AG, Healthcare Sector, Forchheim, Germany

    Martin Sedlmair & Rosemarie Banckwitz

  4. Department of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany

    Michael Lell

Authors
  1. Elisabeth Hofmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthias Schmid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Sedlmair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rosemarie Banckwitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ursula Hirschfelder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael Lell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabeth Hofmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hofmann, E., Schmid, M., Sedlmair, M. et al. Comparative study of image quality and radiation dose of cone beam and low-dose multislice computed tomography - an in-vitro investigation. Clin Oral Invest 18, 301–311 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0948-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0948-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation