DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Loubele, M
Right arrow Articles by Suetens, P
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Loubele, M
Right arrow Articles by Suetens, P
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2008) 37, 309-319
© 2008 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/16770531

RESEARCH

Image quality vs radiation dose of four cone beam computed tomography scanners

M Loubele1,2, R Jacobs*,2,3, F Maes1, K Denis4, S White5, W Coudyzer6, I Lambrichts7, D van Steenberghe2,3 and P Suetens1

1ESAT-PSI, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, 2Perdiodontology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, 3Oral Imaging Center, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, 4EMAP, Xios Hogeschool Limburg, Belgium, 5School of Dentistry, University of California at Los Angeles, USA, 6Radiology, UZ Leuven, Belgium, 7Morphology Section, Universiteit Hasselt, Belgium

*Correspondence to: Reinhilde Jacobs, Centrum voor Orale Beeldvorming, Kapucijnvoer 7 blok a bus 7001, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: reinhilde.jacobs{at}med.kleuven.be

Received 11 June 2007; revised 7 October 2007; accepted 12 October 2007

Objectives: To evaluate image quality by examining segmentation accuracy and assess radiation dose for cone beam CT (CBCT) scanners.

Methods: A skull phantom, scanned by a laser scanner, and a contrast phantom were used to evaluate segmentation accuracy. The contrast phantom consisted of a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) cylinder with cylindrical inserts of air, bone and PMMA. The phantoms were scanned on the (1) Accuitomo 3D, (2) MercuRay, (3) NewTom 3G, (4) i-CAT and (5) Sensation 16. The structures were segmented with an optimal threshold. Thicknesses of the bone of the mandible and the diameter of the cylinders in the contrast phantom were measured across lines at corresponding places in the CT image vs a ground truth. The accuracy was in the 95th percentile of the difference between corresponding measurements. The correlation between accuracy in skull and contrast phantom was calculated. The radiation dose was assessed by DPI100,c (dose profile integral 100,c) at the central hole of a CT dose index (CTDI) phantom.

Results: The results for the DPI100,c were 107 mGy mm for (1), 1569 mGy mm for (2), 446 mGy mm for (3), 249 mGy mm for (4) and 1090 mGy mm for (5). The segmentations in the contrast phantom were submillimeter accurate in all scanners. The segmentation accuracy of the mandible was 2.9 mm for (1), 4.2 mm for (2), 3.4 mm for (3), 1.0 mm for (4) and 1.2 mm for (5). The correlation between measurements in the contrast and skull phantom was below 0.37 mm.

Conclusions: The best radiation dose vs image quality was found for the i-CAT.

Keywords: cone beam computed tomography; image quality; radiation dose






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2008 by the British Institute of Radiology.