Image quality assessment of three cone beam CT machines using the SEDENTEXCT CT phantom.

OBJECTIVES The SEDENTEXCT Project proposed quality assurance (QA) methods and introduced a QA image quality phantom. A new prototype was recently introduced that may be improved according to previous reports. The purpose of this study is to evaluate image quality in various protocols of three cone beam CT (CBCT) machines using the proposed QA phantom. METHODS Using three CBCT machines, nine image quality parameters, including image homogeneity (noise), uniformity, geometrical distortion, pixel intensity value, contrast resolution, spatial resolution [line pair (LP) chart, point spread function (PSF) and modulation transfer function (MTF)] and metal artefacts, were evaluated using a QA phantom proposed by SEDENTEXCT. Exposure parameters, slice thickness and field of view position changed variously, and the number of total protocols was 22. RESULTS Many protocols showed a uniform gray value distribution except in the minimum slice thickness image acquired using 3D Accuitomo 80 (Morita, Kyoto, Japan) and Veraviewepocs 3Df (Morita). Noise levels differed among the protocols. There was no geometric distortion, and the pixel intensity values were correlated with the CT value. Low contrast resolution differed among the protocols, but high contrast resolution performed well in all. Many protocols showed that the maximum line pair was larger than 1 LP mm(-1) but smaller than 3 LP mm(-1). PSF and MTF did not correlate well with the pixel size. The measured metal artefact areas varied for each device. CONCLUSIONS We studied the image quality of three CBCT machines using the SEDENTEXCT phantom. Image quality varied with exposure protocols and machines.

[1]  R Jacobs,et al.  Image quality vs radiation dose of four cone beam computed tomography scanners. , 2008, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[2]  A. Farman,et al.  Maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: essence, elements and steps to interpretation. , 2012, Australian dental journal.

[3]  Yoshinobu Maeda,et al.  Quantitative analysis of metallic artifacts caused by dental metals: comparison of cone-beam and multi-detector row CT scanners , 2011, Oral Radiology.

[4]  Guy Marchal,et al.  Assessment of bone segmentation quality of cone-beam CT versus multislice spiral CT: a pilot study. , 2006, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[5]  H. Bosmans,et al.  Comparison of spatial and contrast resolution for cone-beam computed tomography scanners. , 2012, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology.

[6]  H. Bosmans,et al.  Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images. , 2013, Clinical oral implants research.

[7]  M. V. van Leeuwen,et al.  Minimizing clip artifacts in multi CT angiography of clipped patients. , 2006, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[8]  H. Bosmans,et al.  Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[9]  R Jacobs,et al.  Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. , 2009, European journal of radiology.

[10]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Development and applicability of a quality control phantom for dental cone‐beam CT , 2011, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[11]  F. Maes,et al.  Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  Reinhilde Jacobs,et al.  A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT) Part I. On subjective image quality. , 2010, European journal of radiology.

[13]  M Kortesniemi,et al.  Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. , 2009, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[14]  R Jacobs,et al.  Comparative localized linear accuracy of small-field cone-beam CT and multislice CT for alveolar bone measurements. , 2008, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[15]  J H Siewerdsen,et al.  Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: initial performance characterization. , 2000, Medical physics.

[16]  K. Araki,et al.  The effect of surrounding conditions on pixel value of cone beam computed tomography. , 2013, Clinical oral implants research.