Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 5/2014

01-09-2014 | Original article

Cone beam computed tomography and low-dose multislice computed tomography in orthodontics and dentistry

A comparative evaluation on image quality and radiation exposure

Authors: Dr. E. Hofmann, M. Schmid, M. Lell, U. Hirschfelder

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 5/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

The goal of the present work was to assess various computed tomography (CT) systems in term of image quality and organ doses, namely five cone-beam CT (CBCT) scanners operated at standard settings and three multislice CT (MSCT) scanners operated at greatly dose-reduced settings.

Materials and methods

Radiographic volume scans were taken on a complete human cadaveric head specimen and the image quality of each was rated by four experienced examiners according to specific skeletal structures and bone–soft tissue interfaces. Radiation doses were captured by a head-and-neck phantom (Rando; Alderson Research Laboratories). Standard protocols were used for the CBCT scans. For the MSCT scans, tube voltage and current were adjusted to minimize radiation without compromising image quality.

Results

Interobserver agreement was close to perfect, with iota coefficients of 0.931 (95 % CI 0.807–0.978) between groups 1 and 2 and 0.959 (95 % CI 0.869–1.000) between groups 1 and 3. Ratings of image quality in terms of skeletal-structure representation were slightly better for the CBCT than the MSCT scanners, although these differences were not statistically significant. The two groups of scanners applied considerably different organ doses: the lowest dose (0.03 mSv) was measured on the bone surface with a CBCT unit (Picasso Trio® from Vatech) and the highest dose (8.30 mSv) in the vicinity of the eye lens with another CBCT unit (3D Accuitomo 170® from J. Morita).

Conclusion

The various systems tested offer similar imaging quality but demonstrated distinct differences in organ dose levels. The decision on which approach to take is not between CBCT and MSCT but rather between specific models and parameter settings. If these are optimized, MSCT images providing useful clinical information can be obtained at much reduced levels of radiation. Depending on the model and setting used, MSCT radiation levels may even be lower than during CBCT scans.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Baba R, Ueda K, Okabe M (2004) Using a flat-panel detector in high resolution cone beam CT for dental imaging. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:285–290PubMedCrossRef Baba R, Ueda K, Okabe M (2004) Using a flat-panel detector in high resolution cone beam CT for dental imaging. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:285–290PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Carrafiello G, Dizonno M, Colli V et al (2010) Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. Radiol med 115:600–611PubMedCrossRef Carrafiello G, Dizonno M, Colli V et al (2010) Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. Radiol med 115:600–611PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Cohnen M, Kemper J, Möbes O et al (2002) Radiation dose in dental radiology. Eur Radiol 12:634–637PubMedCrossRef Cohnen M, Kemper J, Möbes O et al (2002) Radiation dose in dental radiology. Eur Radiol 12:634–637PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Coppenrath E, Draenert F, Lechel U et al (2008) Schnittbildverfahren zur dentomaxillofacialen Diagnostik: Dosisvergleich von Dental-MSCT und New Tom 9000 DVT. Fortschr Röntgenstr 180:396–401CrossRef Coppenrath E, Draenert F, Lechel U et al (2008) Schnittbildverfahren zur dentomaxillofacialen Diagnostik: Dosisvergleich von Dental-MSCT und New Tom 9000 DVT. Fortschr Röntgenstr 180:396–401CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y (2010) Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomography-derived surface models of different voxel sizes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137:16.e1–16.e6 (discussion 16–17)PubMedCrossRef Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y (2010) Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomography-derived surface models of different voxel sizes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137:16.e1–16.e6 (discussion 16–17)PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Draenert FG, Coppenrath E, Herzog P et al (2007) Beam hardening artefacts occur in dental implant scans with the NewTom cone beam CT but not with the dental 4-row multidetector CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36:198–203PubMedCrossRef Draenert FG, Coppenrath E, Herzog P et al (2007) Beam hardening artefacts occur in dental implant scans with the NewTom cone beam CT but not with the dental 4-row multidetector CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36:198–203PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Kameoka S et al (2007) Comparison of image validity between cone beam computed tomography for dental use and multidetector row helical computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36:465–471PubMedCrossRef Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Kameoka S et al (2007) Comparison of image validity between cone beam computed tomography for dental use and multidetector row helical computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36:465–471PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Hofmann E, Medelnik J, Fink M et al (2013) Three-dimensional volume tomographic study of the imaging accuracy of impacted teeth: MSCT and CBCT comparison—an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod 35289–294 Hofmann E, Medelnik J, Fink M et al (2013) Three-dimensional volume tomographic study of the imaging accuracy of impacted teeth: MSCT and CBCT comparison—an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod 35289–294
9.
go back to reference Hofmann E, Schmid M, Sedlmair M et al (2013) Comparative study of image quality and dosimetry of cone beam and low-dose multislice computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig. doi:10.1007/s00784-013-0948-9 (epub ahead of print) Hofmann E, Schmid M, Sedlmair M et al (2013) Comparative study of image quality and dosimetry of cone beam and low-dose multislice computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig. doi:10.1007/s00784-013-0948-9 (epub ahead of print)
10.
go back to reference Holberg C, Steinhäuser S, Geis P, Rudzki-Janson I (2005) Cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics: benefits and limitations. J Orofac Orthop 66:434–444PubMedCrossRef Holberg C, Steinhäuser S, Geis P, Rudzki-Janson I (2005) Cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics: benefits and limitations. J Orofac Orthop 66:434–444PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hollander M, Wolfe DA (1999) Nonparametric statistical methods, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York Hollander M, Wolfe DA (1999) Nonparametric statistical methods, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
12.
go back to reference ICRP Publication 103 (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP ICRP Publication 103 (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP
13.
go back to reference Janson H, Olsson U (2001) A measure of agreement for interval or nominal multivariate observations. EPM 61:277–289 Janson H, Olsson U (2001) A measure of agreement for interval or nominal multivariate observations. EPM 61:277–289
14.
go back to reference Kalender WA (2005) Computed tomography. Fundamentals, system technology, image quality, applications. 2nd edn. Publicis, Erlangen Kalender WA (2005) Computed tomography. Fundamentals, system technology, image quality, applications. 2nd edn. Publicis, Erlangen
15.
go back to reference Kyriakou Y, Kolditz D, Lagner O et al (2010) Digital volume tomography (DVT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT): an objective examination of dose and image quality. Fortschr Röntgenstr 183:144–153CrossRef Kyriakou Y, Kolditz D, Lagner O et al (2010) Digital volume tomography (DVT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT): an objective examination of dose and image quality. Fortschr Röntgenstr 183:144–153CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174PubMedCrossRef Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B et al (2010) A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part I: on subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol 75:265–269PubMedCrossRef Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B et al (2010) A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part I: on subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol 75:265–269PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y et al (2010) A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT). Part II: on 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol 75:270–274PubMedCrossRef Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y et al (2010) A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT). Part II: on 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol 75:270–274PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Loubele M, Maes F, Jacobs R et al (2008) Comparative study of image quality for MSCT and CBCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial radiology applications. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 129:222–226PubMedCrossRef Loubele M, Maes F, Jacobs R et al (2008) Comparative study of image quality for MSCT and CBCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial radiology applications. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 129:222–226PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E et al (2009) Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 71:461–468PubMedCrossRef Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E et al (2009) Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 71:461–468PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB (2006) Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G, i-Cat. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 35:219–226PubMedCrossRef Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB (2006) Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G, i-Cat. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 35:219–226PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC (2008) Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examination: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculations. J Am Dent Assoc 139(9):1237–1243PubMedCrossRef Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC (2008) Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examination: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculations. J Am Dent Assoc 139(9):1237–1243PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M (2008) Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:930–938CrossRef Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M (2008) Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:930–938CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Marmulla R, Wortche R, Muhling J (2005) Geometric accuracy of the NewTom 9000 cone-beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 34:28–31PubMedCrossRef Marmulla R, Wortche R, Muhling J (2005) Geometric accuracy of the NewTom 9000 cone-beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 34:28–31PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Okano T, Harata Y, Sugihara Y et al (2009) Absorbed and effective doses from cone beam volumetric imaging for implant planning. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 38:79–85PubMedCrossRef Okano T, Harata Y, Sugihara Y et al (2009) Absorbed and effective doses from cone beam volumetric imaging for implant planning. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 38:79–85PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Periago D, Scarfe W, Moshiri M et al (2008) Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. Angle Orthod 78:387–395PubMedCrossRef Periago D, Scarfe W, Moshiri M et al (2008) Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. Angle Orthod 78:387–395PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Rustemeyer P, Streubühr U, Suttmoeller J (2004) Low-dose dental computed tomography: significant dose reduction without loss of image quality. Acta Radiol 45:847–853PubMedCrossRef Rustemeyer P, Streubühr U, Suttmoeller J (2004) Low-dose dental computed tomography: significant dose reduction without loss of image quality. Acta Radiol 45:847–853PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, Adam G (2004) Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4- and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:83–86PubMedCrossRef Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, Adam G (2004) Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4- and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:83–86PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Shrimpton PC, Wall BF, Fisher ES (1981) The tissue-equivalence of the Alderson Rando anthropomorphic phantom for x-rays of diagnostic qualities. Phys Med Biol 26:133–139PubMedCrossRef Shrimpton PC, Wall BF, Fisher ES (1981) The tissue-equivalence of the Alderson Rando anthropomorphic phantom for x-rays of diagnostic qualities. Phys Med Biol 26:133–139PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlation: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428PubMedCrossRef Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlation: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F et al (2008) Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthodont Orofacial Orthoped 133:640.e1–5 Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F et al (2008) Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthodont Orofacial Orthoped 133:640.e1–5
32.
go back to reference Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Käser Y et al (2009) Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 38:367–378PubMedCrossRef Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Käser Y et al (2009) Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 38:367–378PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Tsiklakis K, Donta C, Gavala S et al (2005) Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose Cone Beam CT. Eur J Radiol 56:413–417PubMedCrossRef Tsiklakis K, Donta C, Gavala S et al (2005) Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose Cone Beam CT. Eur J Radiol 56:413–417PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Cone beam computed tomography and low-dose multislice computed tomography in orthodontics and dentistry
A comparative evaluation on image quality and radiation exposure
Authors
Dr. E. Hofmann
M. Schmid
M. Lell
U. Hirschfelder
Publication date
01-09-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 5/2014
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-014-0232-x

Other articles of this Issue 5/2014

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 5/2014 Go to the issue