Cosimo Nardi1, Cinzia Talamonti2, Stefania Pallotta2, Paola Saletti3, Linda Calistri1, Cesare Cordopatri1, Stefano Colagrande1. 1. 1 Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, University of Florence-Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy. 2. 2 Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Medical Physics Unit, University of Florence-Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy. 3. 3 Department of Health Directorate, UOC Health Physics Unit, University of Florence-Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effective dose and image quality of horizontal CBCT in comparison with multislice spiral CT (MSCT) in scans of the head, cervical spine, ear and dental arches. METHODS: A head and neck Alderson-Rando® phantom (The Phantom Laboratory, Salem, NY) equipped with 74 thermoluminescence dosemeters was exposed according to 5 different scans in CBCT and 4 different scans in MSCT. Spatial and contrast resolutions, in terms of modulation transfer function and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), were measured to obtain a quantitative assessment of image quality. RESULTS: The CBCT effective dose was 248, 249, 361, 565 and 688 µSv in the cervical spine, head, ear, dental arches with small field of view and dental arches with medium field of view, respectively. The MSCT effective dose was 3409, 1892, 660 and 812 µSv in the cervical spine, head, ear and dental arches, respectively. The modulation transfer function was 0.895 vs 0.347, 0.895 vs 0.275, 0.875 vs 0.342 and 0.961 vs 0.352 for CBCT vs MSCT in the cervical spine, head, ear and dental arches, respectively. Head and cervical spine MSCT showed greater CNR than CBCT, whereas CNR of the ear and dental arches showed comparable values. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT was preferable to MSCT for the ear and dental arches volumetric imaging due to its lower radiation dose and significantly higher spatial resolution. In the case of cervical spine and head imaging, MSCT should be generally recommended if a high contrast resolution is required, despite the greater radiation exposure.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effective dose and image quality of horizontal CBCT in comparison with multislice spiral CT (MSCT) in scans of the head, cervical spine, ear and dental arches. METHODS: A head and neck Alderson-Rando® phantom (The Phantom Laboratory, Salem, NY) equipped with 74 thermoluminescence dosemeters was exposed according to 5 different scans in CBCT and 4 different scans in MSCT. Spatial and contrast resolutions, in terms of modulation transfer function and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), were measured to obtain a quantitative assessment of image quality. RESULTS: The CBCT effective dose was 248, 249, 361, 565 and 688 µSv in the cervical spine, head, ear, dental arches with small field of view and dental arches with medium field of view, respectively. The MSCT effective dose was 3409, 1892, 660 and 812 µSv in the cervical spine, head, ear and dental arches, respectively. The modulation transfer function was 0.895 vs 0.347, 0.895 vs 0.275, 0.875 vs 0.342 and 0.961 vs 0.352 for CBCT vs MSCT in the cervical spine, head, ear and dental arches, respectively. Head and cervical spine MSCT showed greater CNR than CBCT, whereas CNR of the ear and dental arches showed comparable values. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT was preferable to MSCT for the ear and dental arches volumetric imaging due to its lower radiation dose and significantly higher spatial resolution. In the case of cervical spine and head imaging, MSCT should be generally recommended if a high contrast resolution is required, despite the greater radiation exposure.
Authors: Jing Zou; Juha Koivisto; Jaakko Lähelmä; Antti Aarnisalo; Jan Wolff; Ilmari Pyykkö Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 1.547
Authors: H Christell; S Birch; M Hedesiu; K Horner; D Ivanauskaité; O Nackaerts; M Rohlin; C Lindh Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2012-04-12 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: R M Loureiro; D V Sumi; H L V C Tames; S P P Ribeiro; C R Soares; R L E Gomes; M M Daniel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Sami Aldhuwayhi; Atul Bhardwaj; Yahya Ahmed M Deeban; Smita Singh Bhardwaj; Rawan Bakr Alammari; Ayoub Alzunaydi Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2022-04-27
Authors: Sepideh Hatamikia; Gunpreet Oberoi; Ewald Unger; Gernot Kronreif; Joachim Kettenbach; Martin Buschmann; Michael Figl; Barbara Knäusl; Francesco Moscato; Wolfgang Birkfellner Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2020-05-08
Authors: Maurice Ruetters; Sinan Sen; Holger Gehrig; Thomas Bruckner; Ti-Sun Kim; Christopher J Lux; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Sarah Heinze; Joscha Maier; Marc Kachelrieß; Stefan Sawall Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Cosimo Nardi; Gian Giacomo Taliani; Alessandro Castellani; Luisa De Falco; Valeria Selvi; Linda Calistri Journal: J Int Soc Prev Community Dent Date: 2017-07-31