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 Suomalainen, A
Right arrow Articles by Kortesniemi, M
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Suomalainen, A
Right arrow Articles by Kortesniemi, M
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2009) 38, 367-378
© 2009 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/15779208

RESEARCH

Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners

A Suomalainen*,1, T Kiljunen, Y Käser, J Peltola and M Kortesniemi2

1Department of Radiology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland; 2HUS Helsinki Medical Imaging Center, University of Helsinki, Finland; 3Department of Physical Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland; 4Department of Oncology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland; 5Department of Oral Radiology, Institute of Dentistry, University of Helsinki, Finland

*Correspondence to: Anni Suomalainen, Department of Radiology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, PO Box 263 (Kasarmikatu 11-13), FI-00029 HUS, Finland;; E-mail: anni.suomalainen{at}hus.fi

Received 6 May 2008; revised 5 July 2008; accepted 8 July 2008

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiation dose and image quality of four dental cone beam CT (CBCT) scanners, and to compare them with those of two multislice CT (MSCT) scanners.

Methods: Tissue doses were measured using a tissue-equivalent anthropomorphic RANDO Head Phantom® with thermoluminescence dosemeters (TLD). An RSVP Head PhantomTM with a specially designed cylindrical insert was used for comparison of image quality and absorbed dose. Image quality was evaluated in the form of contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and modulation transfer function (MTF).

Results: Using standard imaging parameters, the effective doses varied between 14 µSv and 269 µSv (International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) 1990) and 27 µSv and 674 µSv (ICRP 2008) with the CBCT scanners, and between 350 µSv and 742 µSv (ICRP 1990) and 685 µSv and 1410 µSv (ICRP 2008) with the MSCT scanners. The CNR of the CBCT and MSCT scanners were 8.2–18.8 and 13.6–20.7, respectively. Low-dose MSCT protocols provided CNRs comparable with those from CBCT scanners. The 10% MTF of the CBCT scanners varied between 0.1 mm–1 and 0.8 mm–1, and was 0.5 mm–1 for all the MSCT protocols examined.

Conclusions: CBCT scanners provide adequate image quality for dentomaxillofacial examinations while delivering considerably smaller effective doses to the patient. Large variations in patient dose and image quality emphasize the importance of optimizing imaging parameters in both CBCT and MSCT examinations.

Keywords: dental imaging; computed tomography; radiation dose; image quality






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2009 by the British Institute of Radiology.