Assessment of Phantom Dosimetry and Image Quality of I-CAT FLX Cone-beam Computed Tomography

Overview

Journal Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop

Publisher Elsevier

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2013 Nov 30

PMID 24286904

Citations 40

Authors

John B Ludlow

Cameron Walker

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: The increasing use of cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics has been coupled with heightened concern about the long-term risks of x-ray exposure in orthodontic populations. An industry response to this has been to offer low-exposure alternative scanning options in newer cone-beam computed tomography models.

Methods: Effective doses resulting from various combinations of field of view size and field location comparing child and adult anthropomorphic phantoms with the recently introduced i-CAT FLX cone-beam computed tomography unit (Imaging Sciences, Hatfield, Pa) were measured with optical stimulated dosimetry using previously validated protocols. Scan protocols included high resolution (360° rotation, 600 image frames, 120 kV[p], 5 mA, 7.4 seconds), standard (360°, 300 frames, 120 kV[p], 5 mA, 3.7 seconds), QuickScan (180°, 160 frames, 120 kV[p], 5 mA, 2 seconds), and QuickScan+ (180°, 160 frames, 90 kV[p], 3 mA, 2 seconds). Contrast-to-noise ratio was calculated as a quantitative measure of image quality for the various exposure options using the QUART DVT phantom.

Results: Child phantom doses were on average 36% greater than adult phantom doses. QuickScan+ protocols resulted in significantly lower doses than standard protocols for the child (P = 0.0167) and adult (P = 0.0055) phantoms. The 13 × 16-cm cephalometric fields of view ranged from 11 to 85 μSv in the adult phantom and 18 to 120 μSv in the child phantom for the QuickScan+ and standard protocols, respectively. The contrast-to-noise ratio was reduced by approximately two thirds when comparing QuickScan+ with standard exposure parameters.

Conclusions: QuickScan+ effective doses are comparable with conventional panoramic examinations. Significant dose reductions are accompanied by significant reductions in image quality. However, this trade-off might be acceptable for certain diagnostic tasks such as interim assessment of treatment results.

Citing Articles

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

Ozer N, Ulusoy A, Ilhan B, Lindfors N, Boyacioglu H, Grondahl H Imaging Sci Dent. 2025; 54(4):362-369.

PMID: 39744556 PMC: 11685310. DOI: 10.5624/isd.20240096.

Assessment of cone beam computed tomography use in pediatric and adolescent patients: a cross-sectional study.

Bayraktar Nahir C, Citir M, Colak S, Keldal G BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):1068.

PMID: 39261834 PMC: 11391848. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04813-6.

Optimizing cone-beam computed tomography exposure for an effective radiation dose and image quality balance.

Santos A, de Freitas Silva B, Correia F, Mezaiko E, de Souza Roriz C, Silva M Imaging Sci Dent. 2024; 54(2):159-169.

PMID: 38948188 PMC: 11211023. DOI: 10.5624/isd.20230251.

Assessment of cone-beam CT technical image quality indicators and radiation dose for optimal STL model used in visual surgical planning.

Koivisto J, Wolff J, Pauwels R, Kaasalainen T, Suomalainen A, Stoor P Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2024; 53(6):423-433.

PMID: 38913866 PMC: 11358642. DOI: 10.1093/dmfr/twae026.

Eligibility of a novel BW + technology and comparison of sensitivity and specificity of different imaging methods for radiological caries detection.

Becker K, Ehrlich H, Hufner M, Rauch N, Busch C, Schwarz-Herzke B Oral Radiol. 2024; 40(3):424-435.

PMID: 38683260 PMC: 11180636. DOI: 10.1007/s11282-024-00748-4.

References

Grunheid T, Kolbeck Schieck J, Pliska B, Ahmad M, Larson B . Dosimetry of a cone-beam computed tomography machine compared with a digital x-ray machine in orthodontic imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 141(4):436-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.10.024. View

. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007; 37(2-4):1-332. DOI: 10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003. View

Cristy M . Active bone marrow distribution as a function of age in humans. Phys Med Biol. 1981; 26(3):389-400. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/26/3/003. View

Ludlow J, Davies-Ludlow L, White S . Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008; 139(9):1237-43. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0339. View

Brenner D, Hall E . Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357(22):2277-84. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra072149. View

Cassola V, Milian F, Kramer R, de Oliveira Lira C, Khoury H . Standing adult human phantoms based on 10th, 50th and 90th mass and height percentiles of male and female Caucasian populations. Phys Med Biol. 2011; 56(13):3749-72. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/13/002. View

Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A, Bosmans H . Comparison of spatial and contrast resolution for cone-beam computed tomography scanners. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012; 114(1):127-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.01.020. View

Ludlow J, 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(1):106-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.018. View

. Clinical recommendations regarding use of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. [corrected]. Position statement by the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013; 116(2):238-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2013.06.002. View

10.

Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, BERDON W . Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 176(2):289-96. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760289. View

11.

Ludlow J, Davies-Ludlow L, Brooks S . Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003; 32(4):229-34. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/26310390. View

12.

Underhill T, Chilvarquer I, Kimura K, Langlais R, McDavid W, Preece J . Radiobiologic risk estimation from dental radiology. Part I. Absorbed doses to critical organs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1988; 66(1):111-20. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(88)90077-1. View

13.

Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, Kim K, Mahesh M, Gould R . Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169(22):2078-86. PMC: 4635397. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.427. View

14.

Kapila S, Conley R, Harrell Jr W . The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010; 40(1):24-34. PMC: 3611465. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/12615645. View

15.

Watanabe H, Honda E, Tetsumura A, Kurabayashi T . A comparative study for spatial resolution and subjective image characteristics of a multi-slice CT and a cone-beam CT for dental use. Eur J Radiol. 2009; 77(3):397-402. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.09.023. View

16.

Ludlow J, Davies-Ludlow L, Brooks S, Howerton W . Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006; 35(4):219-26. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/14340323. View