Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Eur Radiol. 2017 Feb;27(2):790-800. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4387-2. Epub 2016 May 11.

Performance of cone-beam computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography in diagnostic imaging of the midface: A comparative study on Phantom and cadaver head scans.

Author information

1
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Hamburg, Martinistrasse 52, D-20246, Hamburg, Germany. veldhoen_s@ukw.de.
2
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Würzburg, Oberdürrbacher Straße 6, D-97080, Würzburg, Germany. veldhoen_s@ukw.de.
3
Department of Oral- and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
4
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Hamburg, Martinistrasse 52, D-20246, Hamburg, Germany.
5
Department of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
6
Science and Technology for Radiology, Buchholz, Germany.
7
Institute of Anatomy, University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) regarding radiation, resolution, image noise, and image quality.

METHODS:

CBCT and 256-MDCT were compared based on three scan protocols: Standard-dose (≈24 mGy), reduced-dose (≈9 mGy), and low-dose (≈4 mGy). MDCT images were acquired in standard- and high-resolution mode (HR-MDCT) and reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR). Spatial resolution in linepairs (lp) and objective image noise (OIN) were assessed using dedicated phantoms. Image quality was assessed in scans of 25 cadaver heads using a Likert scale.

RESULTS:

OIN was markedly higher in FBP-MDCT when compared to CBCT. IR lowered the OIN to comparable values in standard-mode MDCT only. CBCT provided a resolution of 13 lp/cm at standard-dose and 11 lp/cm at reduced-dose vs. 11 lp/cm and 10 lp/cm in HR-MDCT. Resolution of 10 lp/cm was observed for both devices using low-dose settings. Quality scores of MDCT and CBCT did not differ at standard-dose (CBCT, 3.4; MDCT, 3.3-3.5; p > 0.05). Using reduced- and low-dose protocols, CBCT was superior (reduced-dose, 3.2 vs. 2.8; low dose, 3.0 vs. 2.3; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION:

Using the low-dose protocol, the assessed CBCT provided better objective and subjective image quality and equality in resolution. Similar image quality, but better resolution using CBCT was observed at higher exposure settings.

KEY POINTS:

• The assessed CBCT device provided better image quality at lower doses. • Objective and subjective image quality were comparable using higher exposure settings. • CBCT showed superior spatial resolution in standard-dose and reduced-dose settings. • Modern noise-reducing tools are used in CBCT devices currently. • MDCT should be preferred for assessment of soft-tissue injuries and oncologic imaging.

KEYWORDS:

Cone-beam computed tomography; Multidetector computed tomography; Phantom imaging; Prospective study; Radiometry

PMID:
27169574
DOI:
10.1007/s00330-016-4387-2
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center