Jin-Woo Choi1. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dankook University College of Dentistry, Chungnam, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate differences in the required visibility of anatomic structures according to the diagnostic tasks of implant planning and periapical diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Images of a real skull phantom were acquired under 24 combinations of different exposure conditions in a cone-beam computed tomography scanner (60, 70, 80, 90, 100, and 110 kV and 4, 6, 8, and 10 mA). Five radiologists evaluated the visibility of anatomic structures and the image quality for diagnostic tasks using a 6-point scale. RESULTS: The visibility of the periodontal ligament space showed the closest association with the ability to use an image for periapical diagnosis in both jaws. The visibility of the sinus floor and canal wall showed the closest association with the ability to use an image for implant planning. Variations in tube voltage were associated with significant differences in image quality for all diagnostic tasks. However, tube current did not show significant associations with the ability to use an image for implant planning. CONCLUSION: The required visibility of anatomic structures varied depending on the diagnostic task. Tube voltage was a more important exposure parameter for image quality than tube current. Different settings should be used for optimization and image quality evaluation depending on the diagnostic task.
PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate differences in the required visibility of anatomic structures according to the diagnostic tasks of implant planning and periapical diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Images of a real skull phantom were acquired under 24 combinations of different exposure conditions in a cone-beam computed tomography scanner (60, 70, 80, 90, 100, and 110 kV and 4, 6, 8, and 10 mA). Five radiologists evaluated the visibility of anatomic structures and the image quality for diagnostic tasks using a 6-point scale. RESULTS: The visibility of the periodontal ligament space showed the closest association with the ability to use an image for periapical diagnosis in both jaws. The visibility of the sinus floor and canal wall showed the closest association with the ability to use an image for implant planning. Variations in tube voltage were associated with significant differences in image quality for all diagnostic tasks. However, tube current did not show significant associations with the ability to use an image for implant planning. CONCLUSION: The required visibility of anatomic structures varied depending on the diagnostic task. Tube voltage was a more important exposure parameter for image quality than tube current. Different settings should be used for optimization and image quality evaluation depending on the diagnostic task.
Authors: R Pauwels; L Seynaeve; J C G Henriques; C de Oliveira-Santos; P C Souza; F H Westphalen; I R F Rubira-Bullen; R F Ribeiro-Rotta; M I B Rockenbach; F Haiter-Neto; P Pittayapat; H Bosmans; R Bogaerts; R Jacobs Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 2.419