Sara Lofthag-Hansen1, Anne Thilander-Klang, Kerstin Gröndahl. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, The Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, and Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. sara.lofthag-hansen@vgregion.se
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate subjective image quality for two diagnostic tasks, periapical diagnosis and implant planning, for cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) using different exposure parameters and fields of view (FOVs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Examinations were performed in posterior part of the jaws on a skull phantom with 3D Accuitomo (FOV 3 cm×4 cm) and 3D Accuitomo FPD (FOVs 4 cm×4 cm and 6 cm×6 cm). All combinations of 60, 65, 70, 75, 80 kV and 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 mA with a rotation of 180° and 360° were used. Dose-area product (DAP) value was determined for each combination. The images were presented, displaying the object in axial, cross-sectional and sagittal views, without scanning data in a random order for each FOV and jaw. Seven observers assessed image quality on a six-point rating scale. RESULTS: Intra-observer agreement was good (κw=0.76) and inter-observer agreement moderate (κw=0.52). Stepwise logistic regression showed kV, mA and diagnostic task to be the most important variables. Periapical diagnosis, regardless jaw, required higher exposure parameters compared to implant planning. Implant planning in the lower jaw required higher exposure parameters compared to upper jaw. Overall ranking of FOVs gave 4 cm×4 cm, 6 cm×6 cm followed by 3 cm×4 cm. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that exposure parameters should be adjusted according to diagnostic task. For this particular CBCT brand a rotation of 180° gave good subjective image quality, hence a substantial dose reduction can be achieved without loss of diagnostic information.
AIMS: To evaluate subjective image quality for two diagnostic tasks, periapical diagnosis and implant planning, for cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) using different exposure parameters and fields of view (FOVs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Examinations were performed in posterior part of the jaws on a skull phantom with 3D Accuitomo (FOV 3 cm×4 cm) and 3D Accuitomo FPD (FOVs 4 cm×4 cm and 6 cm×6 cm). All combinations of 60, 65, 70, 75, 80 kV and 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 mA with a rotation of 180° and 360° were used. Dose-area product (DAP) value was determined for each combination. The images were presented, displaying the object in axial, cross-sectional and sagittal views, without scanning data in a random order for each FOV and jaw. Seven observers assessed image quality on a six-point rating scale. RESULTS: Intra-observer agreement was good (κw=0.76) and inter-observer agreement moderate (κw=0.52). Stepwise logistic regression showed kV, mA and diagnostic task to be the most important variables. Periapical diagnosis, regardless jaw, required higher exposure parameters compared to implant planning. Implant planning in the lower jaw required higher exposure parameters compared to upper jaw. Overall ranking of FOVs gave 4 cm×4 cm, 6 cm×6 cm followed by 3 cm×4 cm. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that exposure parameters should be adjusted according to diagnostic task. For this particular CBCT brand a rotation of 180° gave good subjective image quality, hence a substantial dose reduction can be achieved without loss of diagnostic information.
Authors: K Vallaeys; A Kacem; H Legoux; M Le Tenier; C Hamitouche; R Arbab-Chirani Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 2.419