OBJECTIVES: We aimed to employ the Radia diagnostic software with the safety and efficacy of a new emerging dental X-ray modality (SEDENTEXCT) image quality (IQ) phantom in CT, and to evaluate its validity. METHODS: The SEDENTEXCT IQ phantom and Radia diagnostic software were employed. The phantom was scanned using one medical full-body CT and two dentomaxillofacial cone beam CTs. The obtained images were imported to the Radia software, and the spatial resolution outputs were evaluated. The oversampling method was employed using our original wire phantom as a reference. The resultant modulation transfer function (MTF) curves were compared. The null hypothesis was that MTF curves generated using both methods would be in agreement. One-way analysis of variance tests were applied to the f50 and f10 values from the MTF curves. The f10 values were subjectively confirmed by observing the line pair modules. RESULTS: The Radia software reported the MTF curves on the xy-plane of the CT scans, but could not return f50 and f10 values on the z-axis. The null hypothesis concerning the reported MTF curves on the xy-plane was rejected. There were significant differences between the results of the Radia software and our reference method, except for f10 values in CS9300. These findings were consistent with our line pair observations. CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated the validity of the Radia software with the SEDENTEXCT IQ phantom. The data provided were semi-automatic, albeit with problems and statistically different from our reference. We hope the manufacturer will overcome these limitations.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to employ the Radia diagnostic software with the safety and efficacy of a new emerging dental X-ray modality (SEDENTEXCT) image quality (IQ) phantom in CT, and to evaluate its validity. METHODS: The SEDENTEXCT IQ phantom and Radia diagnostic software were employed. The phantom was scanned using one medical full-body CT and two dentomaxillofacial cone beam CTs. The obtained images were imported to the Radia software, and the spatial resolution outputs were evaluated. The oversampling method was employed using our original wire phantom as a reference. The resultant modulation transfer function (MTF) curves were compared. The null hypothesis was that MTF curves generated using both methods would be in agreement. One-way analysis of variance tests were applied to the f50 and f10 values from the MTF curves. The f10 values were subjectively confirmed by observing the line pair modules. RESULTS: The Radia software reported the MTF curves on the xy-plane of the CT scans, but could not return f50 and f10 values on the z-axis. The null hypothesis concerning the reported MTF curves on the xy-plane was rejected. There were significant differences between the results of the Radia software and our reference method, except for f10 values in CS9300. These findings were consistent with our line pair observations. CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated the validity of the Radia software with the SEDENTEXCT IQ phantom. The data provided were semi-automatic, albeit with problems and statistically different from our reference. We hope the manufacturer will overcome these limitations.
Authors: Kun Ma; Mingqiang Li; Xi Tao; Dong Zeng; Yongbo Wang; Zhaoying Bian; Ziquan Wei; Gaofeng Chen; Qianjin Feng; Jianhua Ma; Jing Huang Journal: Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao Date: 2018-11-30