Imaging Science in Dentistry

  • 제47권2호
  • /
  • Pages.75-86
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 2233-7822(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-7830(eISSN)
대한영상치의학회 (Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Application of a newly developed software program for image quality assessment in cone-beam computed tomography

  • de Oliveira, Marcus Vinicius Linhares (Department of Health Technology and Biology, Federal Institute of Bahia) ;
  • Santos, Antonio Carvalho (Department of Complementary Sciences, Coimbra Health School, Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra) ;
  • Paulo, Graciano (Department of Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy, Coimbra Health School, Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra) ;
  • Campos, Paulo Sergio Flores (Department of Interactive Processes of Organs and Systems, Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Bahia) ;
  • Santos, Joana (Department of Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy, Coimbra Health School, Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra)
  • 투고 : 2016.08.26
  • 심사 : 2017.04.24
  • 발행 : 2017.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to apply a newly developed free software program, at low cost and with minimal time, to evaluate the quality of dental and maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Materials and Methods: A polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) phantom, CQP-IFBA, was scanned in 3 CBCT units with 7 protocols. A macro program was developed, using the free software ImageJ, to automatically evaluate the image quality parameters. The image quality evaluation was based on 8 parameters: uniformity, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), noise, the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), spatial resolution, the artifact index, geometric accuracy, and low-contrast resolution. Results: The image uniformity and noise depended on the protocol that was applied. Regarding the CNR, high-density structures were more sensitive to the effect of scanning parameters. There were no significant differences between SNR and CNR in centered and peripheral objects. The geometric accuracy assessment showed that all the distance measurements were lower than the real values. Low-contrast resolution was influenced by the scanning parameters, and the 1-mm rod present in the phantom was not depicted in any of the 3 CBCT units. Smaller voxel sizes presented higher spatial resolution. There were no significant differences among the protocols regarding artifact presence. Conclusion: This software package provided a fast, low-cost, and feasible method for the evaluation of image quality parameters in CBCT.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Cone beam CT of the head and neck, part 2: clinical applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30: 1285-92. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1654
  2. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72: 75-80.
  3. Janner SF, Jeger FB, Lussi A, Bornstein MM. Precision of endodontic working length measurements: a pilot investigation comparing cone-beam computed tomography scanning with standard measurement techniques. J Endod 2011; 37: 1046-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.05.005
  4. Plachtovics M, Goczan J, Nagy K. The effect of calibration and detector temperature on the reconstructed cone beam computed tomography image quality: a study for the workflow of the iCAT Classic equipment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015; 119: 473-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2014.12.009
  5. 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
  6. Palomo JM, Rao PS, Hans MG. Influence of CBCT exposure conditions on radiation dose. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2008; 105: 773-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.12.019
  7. Guldner C, Ningo A, Voigt J, Diogo I, Heinrichs J, Weber R, et al. Potential of dosage reduction in cone-beam-computed tomography (CBCT) for radiological diagnostics of the paranasal sinuses. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 270: 1307-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-012-2177-2
  8. Tyndall DA, Rathore S. Cone-beam CT diagnostic applications: caries, periodontal bone assessment, and endodontic applications. Dent Clin North Am 2008; 52: 825-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.002
  9. SEDENTEXCT Guideline Development Panel. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence based guidelines. Luxembourg: European Commission Directorate-General for Energy; 2012.
  10. European Commission. Radiation Protection 136. European guidelines on radiation protection in dental radiology. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission; 2004.
  11. Bamba J, Araki K, Endo A, Okano T. Image quality assessment of three cone beam CT machines using the SEDENTEXCT CT phantom. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20120445. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120445
  12. Carter L, Farman AG, Geist J, Scarfe WC, Angelopoulos C, Nair MK, et al. American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology executive opinion statement on performing and interpreting diagnostic cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106: 561-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.07.007
  13. Torgersen GR, Hol C, Moystad A, Hellen-Halme K, Nilsson M. A phantom for simplified image quality control of dental cone beam computed tomography units. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2014; 118: 603-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2014.08.003
  14. Steiding C, Kolditz D, Kalender WA. A quality assurance framework for the fully automated and objective evaluation of image quality in cone-beam computed tomography. Med Phys 2014; 41: 031901. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4863507
  15. Pauwels R, Stamatakis H, Manousaridis G, Walker A, Michielsen K, Bosmans H, et al. Development and applicability of a quality control phantom for dental cone-beam CT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2011; 12: 3478.
  16. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A, Bosmans H, et al. Comparison of spatial and contrast resolution for cone-beam computed tomography scanners. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2012; 114: 127-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.01.020
  17. 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
  18. Loubele M, Jacobs R, Maes F, Denis K, White S, Coudyzer W, et al. Image quality vs radiation dose of four cone beam computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 309-18. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/16770531
  19. Donini B, Rivetti S, Lanconelli N, Bertolini M. Free software for performing physical analysis of systems for digital radiography and mammography. Med Phys 2014; 41: 051903. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4870955
  20. Reeves TE, Mah P, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam CT: a clinical application. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 500-8. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/31640433
  21. Bryant JA, Drage NA, Richmond S. Study of the scan uniformity from an i-CAT cone beam computed tomography dental imaging system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 365-74. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/13227258
  22. Lukat TD, Perschbacher SE, Pharoah MJ, Lam EW. The effects of voxel size on cone beam computed tomography images of the temporomandibular joints. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015; 119: 229-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2014.10.015
  23. Pauwels R, Silkosessak O, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H, Panmekiate S. A pragmatic approach to determine the optimal kVp in cone beam CT: balancing contrast-to-noise ratio and radiation dose. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43: 20140059. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140059
  24. Bechara B, Moore W, McMahan C, Noujeim M. Metal artefact reduction with cone beam CT: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 248-53. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/80899839
  25. Bechara B, Alex McMahan C, Moore WS, Noujeim M, Teixeira FB, Geha H. Cone beam CT scans with and without artefact reduction in root fracture detection of endodontically treated teeth. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20120245. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120245
  26. Bechara B, McMahan C, Geha H, Noujeim M. Evaluation of a cone beam CT artefact reduction algorithm. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 422-8. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/43691321
  27. Brullmann D, Schulze RK. Spatial resolution in CBCT machines for dental/maxillofacial applications-what do we know today? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140204. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140204
  28. Suomalainen A, Vehmas T, Kortesniemi M, Robinson S, Peltola J. Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 10-7. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/14140281
  29. Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Sanderink G. Accuracy of threedimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31: 129-34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn088
  30. Gribel BF, Gribel MN, Frazao DC, McNamara JA Jr, Manzi FR. Accuracy and reliability of craniometric measurements on lateral cephalometry and 3D measurements on CBCT scans. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 26-35. https://doi.org/10.2319/032210-166.1

피인용 문헌

  1. Development of a New Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Software for Endodontic Diagnosis vol.29, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201802455
  2. Potential of a New Cone-Beam CT Software for Blooming Artifact Reduction vol.31, pp.6, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202005899