AIMS: To compare image quality and visibility of anatomical structures in the mandible between five Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scanners and one Multi-Slice CT (MSCT) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One dry mandible was scanned with five CBCT scanners (Accuitomo 3D, i-CAT, NewTom 3G, Galileos, Scanora 3D) and one MSCT system (Somatom Sensation 16) using 13 different scan protocols. Visibility of 11 anatomical structures and overall image noise were compared between CBCT and MSCT. Five independent observers reviewed the CBCT and the MSCT images in the three orthographic planes (axial, sagittal and coronal) and assessed image quality on a five-point scale. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in the visibility of the different anatomical structures and image noise level between MSCT and CBCT and among the five CBCT systems (p=0.0001). Delicate structures such as trabecular bone and periodontal ligament were significantly less visible and more variable among the systems in comparison with other anatomical structures (p=0.0001). Visibility of relatively large structures such as mandibular canal and mental foramen was satisfactory for all devices. The Accuitomo system was superior to MSCT and all other CBCT systems in depicting anatomical structures while MSCT was superior to all other CBCT systems in terms of reduced image noise. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT image quality is comparable or even superior to MSCT even though some variability exists among the different CBCT systems in depicting delicate structures. Considering the low radiation dose and high-resolution imaging, CBCT could be beneficial for dentomaxillofacial radiology. Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
AIMS: To compare image quality and visibility of anatomical structures in the mandible between five Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scanners and one Multi-Slice CT (MSCT) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One dry mandible was scanned with five CBCT scanners (Accuitomo 3D, i-CAT, NewTom 3G, Galileos, Scanora 3D) and one MSCT system (Somatom Sensation 16) using 13 different scan protocols. Visibility of 11 anatomical structures and overall image noise were compared between CBCT and MSCT. Five independent observers reviewed the CBCT and the MSCT images in the three orthographic planes (axial, sagittal and coronal) and assessed image quality on a five-point scale. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in the visibility of the different anatomical structures and image noise level between MSCT and CBCT and among the five CBCT systems (p=0.0001). Delicate structures such as trabecular bone and periodontal ligament were significantly less visible and more variable among the systems in comparison with other anatomical structures (p=0.0001). Visibility of relatively large structures such as mandibular canal and mental foramen was satisfactory for all devices. The Accuitomo system was superior to MSCT and all other CBCT systems in depicting anatomical structures while MSCT was superior to all other CBCT systems in terms of reduced image noise. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT image quality is comparable or even superior to MSCT even though some variability exists among the different CBCT systems in depicting delicate structures. Considering the low radiation dose and high-resolution imaging, CBCT could be beneficial for dentomaxillofacial radiology. Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: B A Stuck; C Bachert; P Federspil; W Hosemann; L Klimek; R Mösges; O Pfaar; C Rudack; H Sitter; M Wagenmann; R Weber; K Hörmann Journal: HNO Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 1.284
Authors: Letícia F Haas; Kamile Dutra; André Luís Porporatti; Luis A Mezzomo; Graziela De Luca Canto; Carlos Flores-Mir; Márcio Corrêa Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: J Demeslay; S Vergez; E Serrano; P Chaynes; P Cantet; B Chaput; G de Bonnecaze Journal: Surg Radiol Anat Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 1.246
Authors: R Patcas; G Markic; L Müller; O Ullrich; T Peltomäki; C J Kellenberger; C A Karlo Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 2.419