Imaging Science in Dentistry

  • 제54권4호
  • /
  • Pages.362-369
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2233-7822(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-7830(eISSN)
대한영상치의학회 (Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The influence of the field of view and voxel size on the contrast-to-noise ratio in cone-beam computed tomography imaging

  • Nezaket Ezgi Ozer (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Ege University) ;
  • Ali Canberk Ulusoy (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Ege University) ;
  • Betul İlhan (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Ege University) ;
  • Ninita Lindfors (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, The Institute for Postgraduate Dental Education) ;
  • Hayal Boyacıoglu (Department of Statistics, Faculty of Science, Ege University) ;
  • Hans-Goran Grondahl (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, The Institute for Postgraduate Dental Education)
  • 투고 : 2024.05.09
  • 심사 : 2024.08.23
  • 발행 : 2024.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: This study investigated the impact of the field of view (FOV), voxel size, and exposure parameters on the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: A SedentexCT phantom was scanned using 3D Accuitomo 170 across 3 FOVs (40×40 mm, 60×60 mm, 80×80 mm). Each FOV had 4 settings for kVp and 3 for mA. Volumes were reconstructed with voxel sizes from 80 to 250 ㎛. The CNR was calculated using ImageJ (ver. 1.41, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda). Statistical analyses included Pearson correlation coefficients and regression (R2). Results: Positive correlations were observed in the 40×40 FOV between voxel size, kVp, mA, rotation degree, and CNR. The 60×60 FOV showed positive correlations between mA, kVp, and CNR, while the 80×80 FOV exhibited correlations for voxel size, kVp, and mA. In the 40×40 (R2=0.551) and 80×80 (R2=0.550) FOVs, mA, kVp, and voxel size influenced CNR. For the 60×60 FOV, mA and kVp were significant contributors(R2=0.389). Using a constant 80-㎛ voxel size, both mA and kVp significantly influenced CNR (R2=0.467); neither FOV nor rotation degree had substantial impacts. Conclusion: CNR increased with higher mA, kVp, and larger voxel sizes for 40×40 and 80×80 FOVs. mA was the most influential factor across all FOVs. Regression models showed significant effects of mA and kVp on CNR with 80-㎛ voxels, while FOV had no effect.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Scarfe WC, Li Z, Aboelmaaty W, Scott SA, Farman AG. Maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: essence, elements and steps to interpretation. Aust Dent J 2012; 57 Suppl 1: 46-60.
  2. 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.
  3. Niktash A, Mehralizadeh S, Talaeipour A. The effect of different field of view sizes on contrast-to-noise ratio of cone-beam computed tomography units: an in-vitro study. Front Dent 2022; 19: 32.
  4. Khurana S, Parasher P, Creanga AG, Geha H. Effect of mandible phantom inclination in the axial plane on image quality in the presence of implant using cone-beam computer tomography. Cureus 2023; 15: e36630.
  5. Wood R, Sun Z, Chaudhry J, Tee BC, Kim DG, Leblebicioglu B, et al. Factors affecting the accuracy of buccal alveolar bone height measurements from cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 143: 353-63.
  6. Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomographyderived surface models of different voxel sizes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 16.e1-6.
  7. Park HJ, Jung SE, Lee YJ, Cho WI, Do KH, Kim SH, et al. The relationship between subjective and objective parameters in CT phantom image evaluation. Korean J Radiol 2009; 10: 490-5.
  8. Tanimoto H,Arai Y.The effect of voxel size onimage reconstruc-tion in cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Radiol 2009; 25: 149-53.
  9. Siewerdsen JH, Jaffray DA. Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: magnitude and effects of x-ray scatter. Med Phys 2001; 28: 220-31.
  10. Rohani SA, Ghomashchi S, Umoh J, Holdsworth DW, Agrawal SK, Ladak HM. Iodine potassium iodide improves the contrastto-noise ratio of micro-computed tomography images of the human middle ear. J Microsc 2016; 264: 334-8.
  11. Li X, Huang W, Rooney WD. Signal-to-noise ratio, contrastto-noise ratio and pharmacokinetic modeling considerations in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 30: 1313-22.
  12. Lindfors N, Lund H, Johansson H, Ekestubbe A. Influence of patient position and other inherent factors on image quality in two different cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices. Eur J Radiol Open 2017; 4: 132-7.
  13. 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.
  14. Elstrøm UV, Muren LP, Petersen JB, Grau C. Evaluation of image quality for different kV cone-beam CT acquisition and reconstruction methods in the head and neck region. Acta Oncol 2011; 50: 908-17.
  15. 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.
  16. Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Käser 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.
  17. Choi JW, Lee SS, Choi SC, Heo MS, Huh KH, Yi WJ, et al. Relationship between physical factors and subjective image quality of cone-beam computed tomography images according to diagnostic task. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015; 119: 357-65.
  18. Peltonen LI, Aarnisalo AA, Kortesniemi MK, Suomalainen A, Jero J, Robinson S. Limited cone-beam computed tomography imaging of the middle ear: a comparison with multislice helical computed tomography. Acta Radiol 2007; 48: 207-12.
  19. Demirturk Kocasarac H, Helvacioglu Yigit D, Bechara B, Sinanoglu A, Noujeim M. Contrast-to-noise ratio with different settings in a CBCT machine in presence of different root-end filling materials: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016;45: 20160012.
  20. Elkhateeb SM, Torgersen GR, Arnout EA. Image quality assessment of clinically-applied CBCT protocols using a QAT phantom. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016; 45: 20160075.
  21. Bechara BB, Moore WS, McMahan CA, Noujeim M. Metal artefact reduction with cone beam CT: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 248-53.
  22. Kim S, Yoo S, Yin FF, Samei E, Yoshizumi T. Kilovoltage cone beam CT: comparative dose and image quality evaluations in partial and full-angle scan protocols. Med Phys 2010; 37: 3648-59.
  23. Ludlow JB, Walker C. Assessment of phantom dosimetry and image quality ofi-CATFLX cone-beam computed tomography. Am JOrthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144: 802-17.
  24. Bechara B, McMahan CA, Moore WS, Noujeim M, Geha H, Teixeira FB. Contrast-to-noise ratio difference in small field of view cone beam computed tomography machines. J Oral Sci 2012; 54: 227-32.
  25. Bechara B, McMahan CA, Moore WS, Noujeim M, Geha H. Contrast-to-noise ratio with different large volumes in a cone beam computerized tomography machine: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012; 114: 658-65.
  26. 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.
  27. 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 2012; 114: 127-35.
  28. Pauwels R, Stamatakis H, Bosmans H, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R, Horner K, et al. Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24 Suppl A100: 94-9.
  29. Wang MF, Xie X, Li G, Zhang Z. Relationship between CNR and visibility of anatomical structures of cone-beam computed tomography images under different exposure parameters. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2020; 49: 20190336.
  30. Pauwels R, Pittayapat P, Sinpitaksakul P, Panmekiate S. Scatterto-primary ratio in dentomaxillofacial cone-beam CT: effect of field of view and beam energy. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2021; 50: 20200597.
  31. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 265-73.
  32. White SC, Pharaoh MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby/Elsevier; 2009. p. 131.
  33. Maloul A, Fialkov J, Whyne C. The impact of voxel size-based inaccuracies on the mechanical behavior of thin bone structures. Ann Biomed Eng 2011; 39: 1092-100.
  34. Kursun-Cakmak EŞ, Demirturk Kocasarac H, Bayrak S, Ustaoğlu G, Noujeim M. Estimation of contrast-to-noise ratio in CT and CBCT images with varying scan settings in presence of different implant materials. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2019; 48:20190139.
  35. Brooks RA, Di Chiro G. Statistical limitations in x-ray reconstructive tomography. Med Phys 1976; 3: 237-40.
  36. Pauwels R, Seynaeve L, Henriques JC, de Oliveira-Santos C, Souza PC, Westphalen FH, et al. Optimization of dental CBCT exposures through mAs reduction. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20150108.
  37. Klintström E, Smedby O, Klintström B, Brismar TB, Moreno R. Trabecular bone histomorphometric measurements and contrast-to-noise ratio in CBCT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43:20140196.