Jean-Philippe Dillenseger1,2,3, Catherine-Isabelle Gros3,4, Amira Sayeh4, Johary Rasamimanana5, Fabrice Lawniczak5, Jean-Marie Leminor2,3,6, Jean-François Matern1, André Constantinesco1, Fabien Bornert3,4, Philippe Choquet1,2,3. 1. 1 Imagerie Préclinique, Pôle d'imagerie, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 2. 2 Icube, équipe MMB, CNRS, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 3. 3 Fédération de Médecine Translationnelle de Strasbourg, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 4. 4 Faculté de Chirurgie Dentaire, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 5. 5 Icube, équipe Mécaflu, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 6. 6 Institut d'Anatomie Normale, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Quantitative and qualitative image quality evaluation of two different dental CBCT scanners. METHODS: Two CBCT systems were evaluated in this study: one small field-of-view (FOV) (50-mm diameter) system that also allows two-dimensional (2D) dental panoramic imaging and one large FOV CBCT system (60-180-mm diameter). These devices were all tested with installed acquisition default modes and proprietary reconstruction software, enabling high-resolution bone imaging. Quantitative analyses were carried out to measure spatial resolution, linearity and homogeneity. Small-size phantoms and a human dry skull were used to evaluate intrinsic performances. Visual qualitative analyses of specific anatomical parts were blindly performed by 10 operators. RESULTS: Concerning spatial resolution, small-voxel size protocols provide equivalent results on the two apparatus. In terms of linearity, all systems are highly linear (0.98 < r2 < 0.99) over the range of signal intensities encountered. Our results, coming from either phantoms or the dry skull, demonstrate that the small FOV CBCT suffers from a lack of homogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: For limited oral and maxillofacial volume imaging (diameter < 50 mm), the polyvalent small FOV CBCT (2D and three-dimensional imaging) system used in this study could reach performances similar to those of the large FOV CBCT.
OBJECTIVES: Quantitative and qualitative image quality evaluation of two different dental CBCT scanners. METHODS: Two CBCT systems were evaluated in this study: one small field-of-view (FOV) (50-mm diameter) system that also allows two-dimensional (2D) dental panoramic imaging and one large FOV CBCT system (60-180-mm diameter). These devices were all tested with installed acquisition default modes and proprietary reconstruction software, enabling high-resolution bone imaging. Quantitative analyses were carried out to measure spatial resolution, linearity and homogeneity. Small-size phantoms and a human dry skull were used to evaluate intrinsic performances. Visual qualitative analyses of specific anatomical parts were blindly performed by 10 operators. RESULTS: Concerning spatial resolution, small-voxel size protocols provide equivalent results on the two apparatus. In terms of linearity, all systems are highly linear (0.98 < r2 < 0.99) over the range of signal intensities encountered. Our results, coming from either phantoms or the dry skull, demonstrate that the small FOV CBCT suffers from a lack of homogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: For limited oral and maxillofacial volume imaging (diameter < 50 mm), the polyvalent small FOV CBCT (2D and three-dimensional imaging) system used in this study could reach performances similar to those of the large FOV CBCT.
Entities:
Keywords:
CBCT; bone imaging; dental imaging; quantitative evaluation; radiologic phantoms
Authors: Louise Y Du; Joseph Umoh; Hristo N Nikolov; Steven I Pollmann; Ting-Yim Lee; David W Holdsworth Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Maria Eugenia Guerrero; Reinhilde Jacobs; Miet Loubele; Filip Schutyser; Paul Suetens; Daniel van Steenberghe Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2006-02-16 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: R Schulze; U Heil; D Gross; D D Bruellmann; E Dranischnikow; U Schwanecke; E Schoemer Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.419