4.3 Article

Improved scan method for dental imaging using multidetector computed tomography: a phantom study

Journal

DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 49, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20190462

Keywords

dental imaging; dentomaxillofacial CT; radiation dose; image quality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: This study aimed to propose an improved scan method to shorten irradiation time and reduce radiation exposure. Methods: The maxilla of a human head CT phantom and a Catphan phantom were used for qualitative and quantitative assessment, respectively. The phantoms were scanned by a 160-row multidetector CT scanner using volumetric and helical scanning. In volumetric scanning, the tube current varied from 120 to 60 to 30 to 20 mA with a tube voltage of 120 kV. Images were reconstructed with a bone kernel using iterative reconstruction (IR) and filtered back projection. As a reference protocol, helical scanning was performed using our clinical setting with 120 kV. Two dental radiologists independently graded the quality of dental images using a 4-point scale (4, superior to reference; 1, unacceptable). For the quantitative assessment, we assessed the system performance from each scan. Results: There was no significant difference between the image quality of volumetric scanning using the 60 mA protocol reconstructed with IR and that of the reference (3.08 and 3.00, p = 0.3388). The system performance values at 1.0 cycles/mm of volumetric scanning and 60 mA protocol reconstructed with IR and reference were 0.0038 and 0.0041, respectively. The effective dose of volumetric scanning using the 60 mA protocol was 51.8 mu Sv, which is a 64.2% reduction to that of the reference. Conclusions: We proposed an improved scan method resulting in a 64.2% reduction of radiation dose with one-fourth of irradiation time by combining volumetric scanning and IR technique in multidetector CT.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available