OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the variability of intensity values in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging compared with multislice computed tomography Hounsfield units (MSCT HU) in order to assess the reliability of density assessments using CBCT images. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A quality control phantom was scanned with an MSCT scanner and five CBCT scanners. In one CBCT scanner, the phantom was scanned repeatedly in the same and in different positions. Images were analyzed using registration to a mathematical model. MSCT images were used as a reference. RESULTS: Density profiles of MSCT showed stable HU values, whereas in CBCT imaging the intensity values were variable over the profile. Repositioning of the phantom resulted in large fluctuations in intensity values. CONCLUSIONS: The use of intensity values in CBCT images is not reliable, because the values are influenced by device, imaging parameters and positioning.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the variability of intensity values in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging compared with multislice computed tomography Hounsfield units (MSCT HU) in order to assess the reliability of density assessments using CBCT images. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A quality control phantom was scanned with an MSCT scanner and five CBCT scanners. In one CBCT scanner, the phantom was scanned repeatedly in the same and in different positions. Images were analyzed using registration to a mathematical model. MSCT images were used as a reference. RESULTS: Density profiles of MSCT showed stable HU values, whereas in CBCT imaging the intensity values were variable over the profile. Repositioning of the phantom resulted in large fluctuations in intensity values. CONCLUSIONS: The use of intensity values in CBCT images is not reliable, because the values are influenced by device, imaging parameters and positioning.
Authors: Laura Ferreira Pinheiro Nicolielo; Jeroen Van Dessel; G Harry van Lenthe; Ivo Lambrichts; Reinhilde Jacobs Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: R Pauwels; O Nackaerts; N Bellaiche; H Stamatakis; K Tsiklakis; A Walker; H Bosmans; R Bogaerts; R Jacobs; K Horner Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.039