Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of effective dose for imaging of mandible between multi-detector CT and cone-beam CT

  • Jeong, Dae-Kyo (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Chul (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Huh, Kyung-Hoe (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yi, Won-Jin (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental Research Institute, and BK21 Craniomaxillofacial Life Science, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Heo, Min-Suk (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Sam-Sun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental Research Institute, and BK21 Craniomaxillofacial Life Science, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Choi, Soon-Chul (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2011.09.27
  • Accepted : 2012.01.05
  • Published : 2012.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : The aim of this study was to compare the effective dose for imaging of mandible between multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). An MDCT with low dose technique was also compared with them. Materials and Methods : Thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) chips were placed at 25 organ sites of an anthropomorphic phantom. The mandible of the phantom was exposed using 2 different types of MDCT units (Somatom Sensation 10 for standard-dose MDCT, Somatom Emotion 6 for low-dose MDCT) and 3 different CBCT units (AZ3000CT, Implagraphy, and Kavo 3D eXaM). The radiation absorbed dose was measured and the effective dose was calculated according to the ICRP 2007 report. Results : The effective dose was the highest for Somatom Sensation 10 (425.84 ${\mu}Sv$), followed by AZ3000CT (332.4 ${\mu}Sv$), Somatom Emotion 6 (199.38 ${\mu}Sv$), and 3D eXaM (111.6 ${\mu}Sv$); it was the lowest for Implagraphy (83.09 ${\mu}Sv$). The CBCT showed significant variation in dose level with different device. Conclusion : The effective doses of MDCTs were not significantly different from those of CBCTs for imaging of mandible. The effective dose of MDCT could be markedly decreased by using the low-dose technique.

Keywords

References

  1. Nakagawa Y, Kobayashi K, Ishii H, Mishima A, Asada K, Ishibashi K. Preoperative application of limited cone beam computerized tomography as an assessment tool before minor oral surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 31 : 322-6. https://doi.org/10.1054/ijom.2001.0222
  2. Hounsfield GN. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography). 1. Description of system. Br J Radiol 1973; 46 : 1016-22. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-46-552-1016
  3. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL. Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32 : 229-34. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/26310390
  4. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35 : 219-26. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/14340323
  5. Lee JN, Han WJ, Kim EK. Absorbed and effective dose from newly developed cone beam computed tomography in Korea. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2007; 37 : 93-102.
  6. Chau AC, Fung K. Comparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conventional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107 : 559-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.11.009
  7. Dula K, Mini R, van der Stelt PF, Sanderink GC, Schneeberger P, Buser D. Comparative dose measurements by spiral tomography for preimplant diagnosis: the Scanora machine versus the Cranex Tome radiography unit. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 91 : 735-42. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2001.113591
  8. Hirsch E, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Silva MA. 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. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/23424132
  9. Carrafiello G, Dizonno M, Colli V, Strocchi S, Pozzi Taubert S, Leonardi A, et al. Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. Radiol Med 2010; 115 : 600-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-010-0520-5
  10. Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Kaser Y, Peltola J, Kortesniemi M. Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38 : 367-78. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/15779208
  11. Kim SY, Han JW, Park IW. Comparison of cone beam CT and conventional CT in absorned and effective dose. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2008; 38 : 7-15.
  12. Tack D, Widelec J, De Maertelaer V, Bailly JM, Delcour C, Gevenois PA. Comparison between low-dose and standard-dose multidetector CT in patients with suspected chronic sinusitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181 : 939-44. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.181.4.1810939
  13. Groves AM, Owen KE, Courtney HM, Yates SJ, Goldstone KE, Blake GM, et al. 16-detector multislice CT: dosimetry estimation by TLD measurement compared with Monte Carlo simulation. Br J Radiol 2004; 77 : 662-5. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/48307881
  14. Avendanio B, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Sokolowski TW. Effective dose and risk assessment from detailed narrow beam radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996; 82 : 713-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(96)80448-3
  15. Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Sokolowski TW. Effective dose and risk assessment from computed tomography of the maxillofacial complex. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1995; 24 : 55-8.
  16. Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Sokolowski TW. Effective dose and risk assessment from film tomography used for dental implant diagnostics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1994; 23 : 123-7.
  17. Underhill TE, Chilvarquer I, Kimura K, Langlais RP, McDavid WD, Preece JW, et al. Radiobiologic risk estimation from dental radiology. Part I. Absorbed doses to critical organs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1988; 66 : 111-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(88)90077-1
  18. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Martini PT, Andreis IA. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 1998; 8 : 1558-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300050586
  19. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S, Suetens P, et al. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 2009; 71 : 461-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.06.002
  20. Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, Adam G. Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4- and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33 : 83-6. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/28403350
  21. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106 : 106-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.018
  22. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, et al. A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT) Part I. On subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75 : 265-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.042
  23. Mulkens TH, Broers C, Fieuws S, Termote JL, Bellnick P. Comparison of effective doses for low-dose MDCT and radiographic examination of sinuses in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184 : 1611-8. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.184.5.01841611
  24. Vassileva J, Stoyanov D. Quality control and patient dosimetry in dental cone beam CT. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010; 139 : 310-2. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq011

Cited by

  1. 상악 정중과잉치 진단을 위한 cone beam CT의 유효선량 vol.39, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5933/jkapd.2012.39.3.273
  2. Effective dose of dental CBCT-a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. vol.44, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140197
  3. Cone beam computed tomography evaluation of mandibular canal anterior loop morphology and volume in a group of Turkish patients vol.30, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2015.1127181
  4. Spatial and contrast resolution of ultralow dose dentomaxillofacial CT imaging using iterative reconstruction technology vol.46, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160452
  5. Influence of Ultra-Low-Dose and Iterative Reconstructions on the Visualization of Orbital Soft Tissues on Maxillofacial CT vol.38, pp.8, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.a5239
  6. Ultralow Dose MSCT Imaging in Dental Implantology vol.12, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210601812010087
  7. Imaging Anatomy of the Jaw and Dentition with Cone Beam Computed Tomography vol.24, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1701494
  8. Low-dose Multidetector Computed Tomographic and Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Protocols for Volumetric Measurement of Simulated Periapical Lesions vol.47, pp.7, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2021.04.019