Determination of Optimum Exposure Parameters for Dentoalveolar Structures of the Jaws Using the CB MercuRay System with Cluster Signal-to-noise Analysis

Overview

Journal Oral Radiol

Specialty Radiology

Date 2018 Nov 29

PMID 30484205

Citations 1

Authors

Warangkana Weerawanich

Mayumi Shimizu

Yohei Takeshita

Kazutoshi Okamura

Shoko Yoshida

Gainer R Jasa

Kazunori Yoshiura

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To determine the optimum cone beam computed tomography exposure parameters for specific diagnostic tasks.

Methods: A Teflon phantom attached to a half-mandible in a large container was scanned in dental (D), implant (I), and panoramic (P) modes. An identical phantom in a small container was scanned in D mode. Both were scanned at 60, 80, 100, and 120 kV. We evaluated the image quality of five anatomical structures [dentinoenamel junction (1), lamina dura and periodontal ligament space (2), trabecular pattern (3), cortex-spongy bone junction (4), and pulp chamber and root canal (5)] and analyzed the diagnostic image quality with cluster signal-to-noise analysis. We then evaluated correlations between the two image qualities and calculated the threshold of acceptable diagnostic image quality. Optimum exposure parameters were determined from images with acceptable diagnostic image quality.

Results: For the small container, the optimum exposure parameters were D mode, 80 kV for (1), (3), and (4) and D mode, 100 kV for (5). For the large container, they were D mode, 120 kV for (1), (3), and (5) and D mode, 100 kV for (4). I mode, 120 kV reached the acceptable level for (4). No images reached the acceptable level for (2).

Conclusions: No optimum exposure parameters were identified for the evaluation of the lamina dura and periodontal ligament space. D mode was sufficient for the other structures; however, the tube voltage required for each structure differed. Smaller patients required lower tube voltage. I mode, 120 kV may be used for larger lesions.

Citing Articles

Relationship between image information content and observer performance in digital intraoral radiography.

Takarabe S, Okamura K, Kuramoto T, Tokumori K, Kato T, Yoshiura K Oral Radiol. 2022; 39(3):491-503.

PMID: 36289169 DOI: 10.1007/s11282-022-00662-7.

References

Oliveira M, Freitas D, Ambrosano G, Haiter-Neto F . Influence of exposure factors on the variability of CBCT voxel values: a phantom study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 43(6):20140128. PMC: 4141669. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140128. View

Pauwels R, Seynaeve L, Henriques J, de Oliveira-Santos C, Souza P, Westphalen F . Optimization of dental CBCT exposures through mAs reduction. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 44(9):20150108. PMC: 5083902. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20150108. View

Berkhout W, Beuger D, Sanderink G, van der Stelt P . The dynamic range of digital radiographic systems: dose reduction or risk of overexposure?. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004; 33(1):1-5. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/40677472. View

Liedke G, Dias da Silveira H, da Silveira H, Dutra V, de Figueiredo J . Influence of voxel size in the diagnostic ability of cone beam tomography to evaluate simulated external root resorption. J Endod. 2009; 35(2):233-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.11.005. View

Svenson B, Welander U, ANNEROTH G, Soderfeldt B . Exposure parameters and their effects on diagnostic accuracy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1994; 78(4):544-50. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(94)90050-7. View

Kaeppler G, Dietz K, Reinert S . The effect of dose reduction on the detection of anatomical structures on panoramic radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006; 35(4):271-7. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/16653683. View

Hidalgo Rivas J, Horner K, Thiruvenkatachari B, Davies J, Theodorakou C . Development of a low-dose protocol for cone beam CT examinations of the anterior maxilla in children. Br J Radiol. 2015; 88(1054):20150559. PMC: 4730983. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150559. View

Librizzi Z, Tadinada A, Valiyaparambil J, Lurie A, Mallya S . Cone-beam computed tomography to detect erosions of the temporomandibular joint: Effect of field of view and voxel size on diagnostic efficacy and effective dose. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 140(1):e25-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.03.012. View

Kanal K, Chung J, Wang J, Bhargava P, Kohr J, Shuman W . Image noise and liver lesion detection with MDCT: a phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197(2):437-41. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5726. View

10.

Weerawanich W, Shimizu M, Takeshita Y, Okamura K, Yoshida S, Jasa G . Evaluation of cone-beam computed tomography diagnostic image quality using cluster signal-to-noise analysis. Oral Radiol. 2018; 35(1):59-67. DOI: 10.1007/s11282-018-0325-0. View

11.

Fakhar H, Mallahi M, Panjnoush M, Kashani P . Effect of Voxel Size and Object Location in the Field of View on Detection of Bone Defects in Cone Beam Computed Tomography. J Dent (Tehran). 2017; 13(4):279-286. PMC: 5253221. View

12.

Lofthag-Hansen S, Thilander-Klang A, Grondahl K . Evaluation of subjective image quality in relation to diagnostic task for cone beam computed tomography with different fields of view. Eur J Radiol. 2010; 80(2):483-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.09.018. View

13.

Siegel M, Schmidt B, Bradley D, Suess C, Hildebolt C . Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape. Radiology. 2004; 233(2):515-22. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2332032107. View

14.

Choi J . Analysis of the priority of anatomic structures according to the diagnostic task in cone-beam computed tomographic images. Imaging Sci Dent. 2016; 46(4):245-249. PMC: 5192022. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2016.46.4.245. View

15.

Weerawanich W, Shimizu M, Takeshita Y, Okamura K, Yoshida S, Yoshiura K . Cluster signal-to-noise analysis for evaluation of the information content in an image. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017; 47(1):20170147. PMC: 5965741. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20170147. View

16.

Zanca F, Van Ongeval C, Claus F, Jacobs J, Oyen R, Bosmans H . Comparison of visual grading and free-response ROC analyses for assessment of image-processing algorithms in digital mammography. Br J Radiol. 2012; 85(1020):e1233-41. PMC: 3611729. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/22608279. View

17.

Araki K, Maki K, Seki K, Sakamaki K, Harata Y, Sakaino R . Characteristics of a newly developed dentomaxillofacial X-ray cone beam CT scanner (CB MercuRay): system configuration and physical properties. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004; 33(1):51-9. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/54013049. View

18.

Pauwels R, Araki K, Siewerdsen J, Thongvigitmanee S . Technical aspects of dental CBCT: state of the art. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 44(1):20140224. PMC: 4277439. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140224. View

19.

Huysmans M, Hintze H, Wenzel A . Effect of exposure time on in vitro caries diagnosis using the Digora system. Eur J Oral Sci. 1997; 105(1):15-20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1997.tb00175.x. View

20.

Toraman Alkurt M, Peker I, Usalan G, Altunkaynak B . Clinical evaluation of dose reduction on image quality of panoramic radiographs. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2008; 9(5):34-41. View