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((R)) with thermoluminescence dosemeters (TLD). An RSVP Head Phantom(TM) 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 microSv and 269 microSv (International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) 1990) and 27 microSv and 674 microSv (ICRP 2008) with the CBCT scanners, and between 350 microSv and 742 microSv (ICRP 1990) and 685 microSv and 1410 microSv (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.
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((R)) with thermoluminescence dosemeters (TLD). An RSVP Head Phantom(TM) 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 microSv and 269 microSv (International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) 1990) and 27 microSv and 674 microSv (ICRP 2008) with the CBCT scanners, and between 350 microSv and 742 microSv (ICRP 1990) and 685 microSv and 1410 microSv (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.
Authors: F S Neves; T C Souza; S M Almeida; F Haiter-Neto; D Q Freitas; F N Bóscolo Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 2.419
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