Literature DB >> 27008106

Evaluation of the effects of positioning and configuration on contrast-to-noise ratio in the quality control of a 3D Accuitomo 170 dental CBCT system.

Catherine Taylor1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of phantom positioning and the configuration of phantom inserts on the measurement of contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in dental CBCT. The work aimed to make pragmatic suggestions for the remedial tolerances for CNR measurements in the routine quality control (QC) of a three-dimensional Accuitomo 170 dental CBCT system (J Morita, Kyoto, Japan).
METHODS: Images of the SEDENTEXCT (safety and efficacy of a new and emerging dental X-ray modality) IQ (image quality) dental CBCT phantom (Leeds Test Objects Ltd, Boroughbridge, UK) were acquired and measurements of CNR were obtained in three configurations of inserts and in six phantom orientations for one of the configurations. Five consecutive images were acquired in each case, to assess the reproducibility of measurements.
RESULTS: Reproducibility of measurements ranged from 1.8% to 4.6%. For the CNR measurements in the three phantom configurations, the ratio of the measured CNR to the minimum value was 2.1 ± 0.2 times the minimum value for Delrin(®) (DuPont UK Ltd, Stevenage, UK). For aluminium, there was no significant variation between configurations and for the other three materials, the ratio ranged from 20% to 50%. Significant variations in CNR with phantom position were observed, with differences between the maximum and minimum values ranging from 10% to 60%. Absolute differences in CNR from the minimum value ranged from <0.1 to 2.1 with phantom configuration and from 1.2 to 4.5 with phantom position.
CONCLUSIONS: The effects of phantom configuration and positioning on CNR measurements for dental CBCT QC were investigated and possible remedial tolerances suggested.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CBCT; quality control

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27008106      PMCID: PMC5084703          DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20150430

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol        ISSN: 0250-832X            Impact factor:   2.419


  6 in total

1.  Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: magnitude and effects of x-ray scatter.

Authors:  J H Siewerdsen; D A Jaffray
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  What is cone-beam CT and how does it work?

Authors:  William C Scarfe; Allan G Farman
Journal:  Dent Clin North Am       Date:  2008-10

3.  Study of the scan uniformity from an i-CAT cone beam computed tomography dental imaging system.

Authors:  J A Bryant; N A Drage; S Richmond
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.419

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

Authors:  A Suomalainen; T Kiljunen; Y Käser; J Peltola; M Kortesniemi
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.419

5.  A pragmatic approach to determine the optimal kVp in cone beam CT: balancing contrast-to-noise ratio and radiation dose.

Authors:  R Pauwels; O Silkosessak; R Jacobs; R Bogaerts; H Bosmans; S Panmekiate
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 2.419

6.  Development and applicability of a quality control phantom for dental cone-beam CT.

Authors:  Ruben Pauwels; Harry Stamatakis; Giorgos Manousaridis; Adrian Walker; Koen Michielsen; Hilde Bosmans; Ria Bogaerts; Reinhilde Jacobs; Keith Horner; Kostas Tsiklakis
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 2.102

  6 in total
  4 in total

1.  Evaluation of a metal artefact reduction tool on different positions of a metal object in the FOV.

Authors:  Polyane M Queiroz; Gustavo M Santaella; Thais D J da Paz; Deborah Q Freitas
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 2.419

Review 2.  Quality assurance phantoms for cone beam computed tomography: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Marcus V L de Oliveira; Ann Wenzel; Paulo S F Campos; Rubens Spin-Neto
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 2.419

3.  Does the size of an object containing dental implant affect the expression of artifacts in cone beam computed tomography imaging?

Authors:  Mahkameh Moshfeghi; Yaser Safi; Ingrid Różyło-Kalinowska; Shiva Gandomi
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 2.246

4.  Contrast-to-noise ratios of different dental restorative materials: an in-vitro cone beam computed tomography study.

Authors:  Seval Bayrak; Emine Sebnem Kursun Cakmak; Hakan Kamalak
Journal:  Eur Oral Res       Date:  2020-01-01
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.