Marcus V L de Oliveira1,2, Ann Wenzel3, Paulo S F Campos2, Rubens Spin-Neto3. 1. 1 Department of Health Technology and Biology, Federal Institute of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil. 2. 2 Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Interactive, Processes of Organs and Systems, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil. 3. 3 Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To undertake a systematic review on quality assurance (QA) phantoms for CBCT imaging, including studies on the development and application of phantoms. METHODS: The MEDLINE (PubMed) bibliographic database was searched until May 2016 for studies evaluating the development and use of phantoms in CBCT image QA. The search strategy was restricted to English language publications using the following combined terms: (Cone Beam CT) OR (Cone Beam Computed Tomography) OR (Cone-Beam Computed Tomography) OR (CBCT) AND (quality OR phantom). It was assessed which of the six image quality parameters stated by the European Commission could be evaluated with each phantom and which of them actually were. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 37 studies, which had developed and used (25 studies) or only used (12 studies) a phantom in CBCT image QA. According to the literature, in 7 phantoms, it is possible to evaluate 4 or more image quality parameters while in 11 phantoms, merely 1 parameter can be evaluated. Only two phantoms permit the evaluation of the six image quality parameters stated by the European Commission. The parameters, which can most often be evaluated using a phantom, are image density values, spatial resolution and geometric accuracy. The SEDENTEXCT phantom was used most frequently. In two studies, all quality parameters suggested by the European Commission were evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: QA phantoms rarely allow all image quality parameters stated by the European Commission to be evaluated. Furthermore, alternative phantoms, which allow all image quality parameters to be evaluated in a single exposure, even for a small field of view, should be developed.
OBJECTIVES: To undertake a systematic review on quality assurance (QA) phantoms for CBCT imaging, including studies on the development and application of phantoms. METHODS: The MEDLINE (PubMed) bibliographic database was searched until May 2016 for studies evaluating the development and use of phantoms in CBCT image QA. The search strategy was restricted to English language publications using the following combined terms: (Cone Beam CT) OR (Cone Beam Computed Tomography) OR (Cone-Beam Computed Tomography) OR (CBCT) AND (quality OR phantom). It was assessed which of the six image quality parameters stated by the European Commission could be evaluated with each phantom and which of them actually were. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 37 studies, which had developed and used (25 studies) or only used (12 studies) a phantom in CBCT image QA. According to the literature, in 7 phantoms, it is possible to evaluate 4 or more image quality parameters while in 11 phantoms, merely 1 parameter can be evaluated. Only two phantoms permit the evaluation of the six image quality parameters stated by the European Commission. The parameters, which can most often be evaluated using a phantom, are image density values, spatial resolution and geometric accuracy. The SEDENTEXCT phantom was used most frequently. In two studies, all quality parameters suggested by the European Commission were evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: QA phantoms rarely allow all image quality parameters stated by the European Commission to be evaluated. Furthermore, alternative phantoms, which allow all image quality parameters to be evaluated in a single exposure, even for a small field of view, should be developed.
Keywords:
CBCT; image quality; quality assurance; quality control
Authors: Laurie Carter; Allan G Farman; James Geist; William C Scarfe; Christos Angelopoulos; Madhu K Nair; Charles F Hildebolt; Donald Tyndall; Michael Shrout Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2008-10
Authors: Hugo Gaêta-Araujo; André Ferreira Leite; Karla de Faria Vasconcelos; Reinhilde Jacobs Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Luciano Augusto Cano Martins; Polyane Mazucatto Queiroz; Yuri Nejaim; Karla de Faria Vasconcelos; Francisco Carlos Groppo; Francisco Haiter-Neto Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 2.419