Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Oral Radiology
Published in: Oral Radiology 2/2009

01-12-2009 | Technical Report

The effect of voxel size on image reconstruction in cone-beam computed tomography

Authors: Hideyuki Tanimoto, Yoshinori Arai

Published in: Oral Radiology | Issue 2/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

This study evaluated the effects of changing the voxel size on the resolution and noise of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) reconstruction images.

Methods

The voxel sizes used for reconstruction were 160, 80, and 40 μm using prototype software for the Accuitomo F8 (J. Morita, Kyoto, Japan). The resolution was measured using a modulation transfer function (MTF), and CBCT images of a 1-mm-thick, 10-mm-diameter aluminum pipe set slightly inclined from the vertical were taken with a field of view of 8 cm. To measure the noise, a tomographic image of an 8-cm-diameter water phantom was taken and reconstructed at the three voxel sizes. The standard deviation (SD) of the noise was then determined.

Results

The MTF at 2 lp/mm was 0.05, 0.12, and 0.12 for voxel sizes of 160, 80, and 40 μm, respectively, and the SD of the noise was 10.0, 13.8, and 17.1% for the same respective voxel sizes.

Conclusions

The limit of resolution was determined to be the 80-μm voxel size. When the voxels were smaller, the noise increased.
Literature
1.
Arai Y, Tammisalo E, Iwai K, Hashimoto K, Shinoda K. Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1999;28:245–8.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Terakado M, Hashimoto K, Arai Y, Honda M, Sekiwa T, Sato H. Diagnostic imaging with newly developed ortho cubic super-high resolution computed tomography (Ortho-CT). Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000;89:509–18.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Hashimoto K, Arai Y, Iwai K, Kawashima S, Terakado M. A comparison of a new limited cone beam computed tomography machine for dental use with a multidetector row helical CT machine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003;95:371–7.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Honda K, Arai Y, Kashima M, Takano Y, Sawada K, Ejima K, et al. Evaluation of the usefulness of the limited cone-beam CT (3DX) in the assessment of the thickness of the roof of the glenoid fossa of the temporomandibular joint. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33:391–5.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Araki M, Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Matsumoto K, Akiyama Y. Radiographic features of enostosis determined with limited cone-beam computer tomography in comparison with rotational panoramic radiography. Oral Radiol. 2006;22:27–33.CrossRef
6.
Kagawa T, Fukunari F, Shiraishi T, Yamasaki M, Ichihara T, Kihara Y, et al. Development of a simple image designed for small x-ray field CT equipment 3DX. Oral Radiol. 2006;22:47–51.CrossRef
7.
Sakabe J, Kuroki Y, Fujimaki S, Nakajima I, Honda K. Reproducibility and accuracy of measuring unerupted teeth using limited cone beam x-ray CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007;36:2–6.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Suomalainen AK, Salo A, Robinson S, Peltola JS. The 3DX multi-image micro-CT device in clinical dental practice. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007;36:80–5.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Lofthag-Hansen S, Thilander-Klang A, Ekestubbe A, Helmrot E, Gröndahl K. Calculating effective dose on a cone beam computed tomography device: 3D Accuitomo and 3D Accuitomo FPD. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37:72–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Hirsch E, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Silva MAG. Dosimetry of the cone beam computed tomography Veraviewepocs 3D compared with the 3D Accuitomo in different fields of view. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37:268–73.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Araki K, Maki K, Seki K, Sakamaki K, Harata Y, Sakaino R, et al. Characteristics of a newly developed dentomaxillofacial x-ray cone beam CT scanner (CB MercuRay™): system configuration and physical properties. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33:51–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Marmulla R, Wörtche R, Mühling J, Hassfeld S. Geometric accuracy of the NewTom 9000 cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005;34:28–31.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Arnheiter C, Scarfe WC, Farman AG. Trends in maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography usage. Oral Radiol. 2006;22:80–5.CrossRef
14.
Bartling SH, Majdani O, Gupta R, Rodt T, Dullin C, Fitzgerald PF, et al. Large scan field, high spatial resolution flat-panel detector based volumetric CT of the whole human skull base and for maxillofacial imaging. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007;36:317–27.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Stratemann SA, Huang JC, Maki K, Miller AJ, Hatcher DC. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37:80–93.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Stewart CB. Radiologic science for technologists: physics, biology, and protection. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby; 1988.
17.
Samei E, Ranger NT, Dobbins JT III, et al. Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. I. Modulation transfer function. Med Phys. 2006;33(5):1454–65.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Higashide R, Ichikawa K, Kunimoto H, Sagawa M. Proposal and verification of presampled MTF measurement by the simple analysis method using the edge method (in Japanese). Dent Radiol. 2008;64:417–25.
19.
Berland L. Practical CT technology and techniques. New York: Raven Press; 1987.
21.
ICRP. ICRP publication 60: 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP, vol 21. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1991.
23.
Hayakawa Y, Farman AG, Kelly MS, Kuroyanagi K. Signal-to noise ratio: computed dental radiography versus Sens-A-Ray. Oral Radiol. 1995;11(2):109–13.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The effect of voxel size on image reconstruction in cone-beam computed tomography
Authors
Hideyuki Tanimoto
Yoshinori Arai
Publication date
01-12-2009
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Oral Radiology / Issue 2/2009
Print ISSN: 0911-6028
Electronic ISSN: 1613-9674
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-009-0019-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2009

Oral Radiology 2/2009 Go to the issue

Original Article

Computed tomographic anatomy of the mandibular first and second molars and their surrounding structures in the spread of odontogenic infection

Original Article

Computer-based videofluorographic analysis of posterior pharyngeal wall movement during swallowing in patients with head-and-neck cancer

Technical Report

Comparison of two- and three-dimensional filtering methods to improve image quality in multiplanar reconstruction of cone-beam computed tomography

Original Article

Converting conventional radiographic examination data of trabecular bone pattern values into density measurement values using intraoral digital images

Original Article

The frequency of distomolar teeth in a population of urban Turkish adults: a retrospective study

Original Article

CT analyses of the location of the maxillary third molar in relation to panoramic radiographic appearance