Skip to content
2000
Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-4056
  • E-ISSN: 1875-6603
file format text download EPUB
file format pdf download PDF
side by side viewer icon HTML

Abstract

Objectives

This study aims to investigate the effect of full- and half-rotation angles on patient radiation dose and quantitative image quality in CBCT imaging of the head and neck region.

Methods

A total of 67 TLDs were used for the dosimetry of 16 different regions in the head and neck slices of the anthropometric phantom. The Hyperion X9 Pro (MyRay, Cefla, Imola, Italy) CBCT device was used with a 90 kV pulsed beam and a 13x16e FOV size. Two separate imaging modes (Regular 360 0 and Quick 180 0) were tested, and the mA was determined by the software. Effective doses (EDs) were calculated using the coefficients recommended by ICRP 103 (2007). For the quantitative image quality tests, three VOIs were manually selected for three separate densities in image slices selected from the mandible, maxilla, and paranasal sinus regions of both volumes separately. Pixel values were averaged, and (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and uniformity tests were conducted.

Results

In 360 0, ED was calculated as 1.903 mSv and the highest absorbed dose was found in the oral mucosa (1.566 mSv). In 180 0, ED was calculated as 1.123 mSv and the highest absorbed dose was found in the right temporal squamous region (0.984 mSv). The reduction in ED was found to be 41% for full- and half-rotation angles. Quick/Regular ratios for SNR and CNR were changed between 0.83-0.91.

Conclusion

The magnitude of reduction in ED was found to be higher than the quantitative image quality; however, the impact of this change on diagnosis should be analyzed according to the imaging purpose.

© 2025 The Author(s).
© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Bentham Science Publishers. This is an open access article published under CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056316438241203095215
2025-01-01
2025-10-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056316438241203095215
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/cmir/21/1/CMIR-21-E15734056316438.html?itemId=/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056316438241203095215&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. LanglandO.E. LanglaisR.P. Early pioneers of oral and maxillofacial radiology.Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod.199580549651110.1016/S1079‑2104(05)80149‑08556460
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Gaêta-AraujoH. AlzoubiT. VasconcelosK.F. OrhanK. PauwelsR. CasselmanJ.W. JacobsR. Cone beam computed tomography in dentomaxillofacial radiology: A two-decade overview.Dentomaxillofac. Radiol.20204982020014510.1259/dmfr.2020014532501720
     [Google Scholar]
  3. NemtoiA. CzinkC. HabaD. GahleitnerA. Cone beam CT: A current overview of devices.Dentomaxillofac. Radiol.20134282012044310.1259/dmfr.2012044323818529
     [Google Scholar]
  4. NassehI. Al-RawiW. Cone beam computed tomography.Dent. Clin.201862336139110.1016/j.cden.2018.03.002
     [Google Scholar]
  5. MozzoP. ProcacciC. TacconiA. Tinazzi MartiniP. Bergamo AndreisI.A. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: Preliminary results.Eur. Radiol.1998891558156410.1007/s0033000505869866761
     [Google Scholar]
  6. NardiC. SalernoS. MolteniR. OcchipintiM. GrazziniG. NorbertiN. CordopatriC. ColagrandeS. Radiation dose in non-dental cone beam CT applications: A systematic review.Radiol. Med. (Torino)20181231076577710.1007/s11547‑018‑0910‑729869227
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Radiation sources in Turkey - 2021.2021Available from: https://webim.ndk.gov.tr/file/5e04c745-1738-4003-8c92-d665745960fb(Accessed on: 15 Feb 2024).
  8. Radiation sources in Turkey - 20222023Available from: https://www.ndk.gov.tr/haberler/turkiyede-radyasyon-kaynaklari-2022-yayin(Accessed on: 15 Feb 2024).
  9. BornsteinM. ScarfeW. VaughnV. JacobsR. JacobsR. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: A systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks.Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants201429Suppl 29557710.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.424660190
     [Google Scholar]
  10. LoubeleM. BogaertsR. Van DijckE. PauwelsR. VanheusdenS. SuetensP. MarchalG. SanderinkG. JacobsR. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications.Eur. J. Radiol.200971346146810.1016/j.ejrad.2008.06.00218639404
     [Google Scholar]
  11. KelarantaA. EkholmM. ToroiP. KortesniemiM. Radiation exposure to foetus and breasts from dental X-ray examinations: Effect of lead shields.Dentomaxillofac. Radiol.20164512015009510.1259/dmfr.2015009526313308
     [Google Scholar]
  12. KadesjöN. LyndsR. NilssonM. ShiX.Q. Radiation dose from X-ray examinations of impacted canines: cone beam CT vs two-dimensional imaging.Dentomaxillofac. Radiol.20184732017030510.1259/dmfr.2017030529303367
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Al-OkshiA. LindhC. SaléH. GunnarssonM. RohlinM. Effective dose of cone beam CT (CBCT) of the facial skeleton: A systematic review.Br. J. Radiol.20158810452014065810.1259/bjr.2014065825486387
     [Google Scholar]
  14. RottkeD. PatzeltS. PoxleitnerP. SchulzeD. Effective dose span of ten different cone beam CT devices.Dentomaxillofac. Radiol.20134272012041710.1259/dmfr.2012041723584925
     [Google Scholar]
  15. MorantJ.J. SalvadóM. Hernández-GirónI. CasanovasR. OrtegaR. CalzadoA. Dosimetry of a cone beam CT device for oral and maxillofacial radiology using Monte Carlo techniques and ICRP adult reference computational phantoms.Dentomaxillofac. Radiol.20134239255589310.1259/dmfr/9255589322933532
     [Google Scholar]
  16. PauwelsR. ZhangG. TheodorakouC. WalkerA. BosmansH. JacobsR. BogaertsR. HornerK. Effective radiation dose and eye lens dose in dental cone beam CT: Effect of field of view and angle of rotation.Br. J. Radiol.20148710422013065410.1259/bjr.2013065425189417
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Quality control in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) EFOMP-ESTRO-IAEA protocol.2019Available from: https://www.efomp.org/uploads/2d23d153-b77c-4161-802c-5b8422d15e29/EFOMP_IAEA_ESTRO_%20CBCT_2019_05_27.pdf(Accessed on: 15 Feb 2024).
  18. YelI. BoozC. AlbrechtM.H. Gruber-RouhT. PolkowskiC. JacobiM. LengaL. SchulzM. FrankJ. MarziI. VoglT.J. EichlerK. KaltenbachB. Optimization of image quality and radiation dose using different cone-beam CT exposure parameters.Eur. J. Radiol.2019116687510.1016/j.ejrad.2019.04.00531153576
     [Google Scholar]
  19. ElkhateebS.M. TorgersenG.R. ArnoutE.A. Image quality assessment of clinically-applied CBCT protocols using a QAT phantom.Dentomaxillofac. Radiol.20164552016007510.1259/dmfr.2016007527078054
     [Google Scholar]
  20. The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection.Available from: https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20103(Accessed on: 15 Feb 2024).
  21. PauwelsR. History of dental radiography: Evolution of 2D and 3D imaging modalities.Med. Phys. Int.20203Special issue235277
     [Google Scholar]
  22. GranlundC. Thilander-KlangA. YlhanB. Lofthag-HansenS. EkestubbeA. Absorbed organ and effective doses from digital intra-oral and panoramic radiography applying the ICRP 103 recommendations for effective dose estimations.Br. J. Radiol.20168910662015105210.1259/bjr.2015105227452261
     [Google Scholar]
  23. ShoushaH.A. Abd-El HafezA.I. AhmadF. Dosimetric study of the effective doses resulting during dental X-ray and panoramic radiography.Radiat. Eff. Defects Solids20111661677310.1080/10420150.2010.509765
     [Google Scholar]
  24. ShatskiyI. Effective doses and radiation risks from common dental radiographic, panoramic and CBCT examinations.Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry20211953-429630510.1093/rpd/ncab06934086952
     [Google Scholar]
  25. WrzesieńM. OlszewskiJ. Absorbed doses for patients undergoing panoramic radiography, cephalometric radiography and CBCT.Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health201730570571310.13075/ijomeh.1896.0096028584324
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology.2012Available from: https://sedentexct.eu/files/radiation_protection_172.pdf
  27. da Silva MouraW. ChiquetoK. PithonG.M. NevesL.S. CastroR. HenriquesJ.F.C. Factors influencing the effective dose associated with CBCT: A systematic review.Clin. Oral Investig.20192331319133010.1007/s00784‑018‑2561‑430006685
     [Google Scholar]
  28. PauwelsR. ArakiK. SiewerdsenJ.H. ThongvigitmaneeS.S. Technical aspects of dental CBCT: State of the art.Dentomaxillofac. Radiol.20154412014022410.1259/dmfr.2014022425263643
     [Google Scholar]
  29. GoulstonR. DaviesJ. HornerK. MurphyF. Dose optimization by altering the operating potential and tube current exposure time product in dental cone beam CT: A systematic review.Dentomaxillofac. Radiol.20164532015025410.1259/dmfr.2015025426732433
     [Google Scholar]
  30. YeungA.W.K. JacobsR. BornsteinM.M. Novel low-dose protocols using cone beam computed tomography in dental medicine: A review focusing on indications, limitations, and future possibilities.Clin. Oral Investig.20192362573258110.1007/s00784‑019‑02907‑y31025192
     [Google Scholar]
  31. KaaberL. MatzenL.H. SchroppL. Spin-NetoR. Low-dose CBCT protocols in implant dentistry: A systematic review.Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol.2024138342743910.1016/j.oooo.2024.03.01338679501
     [Google Scholar]
  32. van BunningenR.H. DijkstraP.U. DietersA. van der MeerW.J. Kuijpers-JagtmanA.M. RenY. Precision of orthodontic cephalometric measurements on ultra low dose-low dose CBCT reconstructed cephalograms.Clin. Oral Investig.20222621543155010.1007/s00784‑021‑04127‑934453209
     [Google Scholar]
  33. CodariM. de Faria VasconcelosK. Ferreira Pinheiro NicolieloL. Haiter NetoF. JacobsR. Quantitative evaluation of metal artifacts using different CBCT devices, high‐density materials and field of views.Clin. Oral Implants Res.201728121509151410.1111/clr.1301928432698
     [Google Scholar]
  34. ZhangH. OuyangL. MaJ. HuangJ. ChenW. WangJ. Noise correlation in CBCT projection data and its application for noise reduction in low‐dose CBCT.Med. Phys.201441303190610.1118/1.486578224593724
     [Google Scholar]
  35. PitaA. ThackerS. SobueT. GandhiV. TadinadaA. Newly developed low dose 180-degree CBCT protocol reduces radiation dose without compromising diagnostic value.Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants20233861161116710.11607/jomi.1036438085747
     [Google Scholar]
  36. WashioH. OhiraS. FunamaY. MorimotoM. WadaK. YagiM. ShimamotoH. KoikeY. UedaY. KarinoT. InuiS. NittaY. MiyazakiM. TeshimaT. Metal artifact reduction using iterative CBCT reconstruction algorithm for head and neck radiation therapy: A phantom and clinical study.Eur. J. Radiol.202013210929310.1016/j.ejrad.2020.10929332987251
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056316438241203095215
Loading
Head and Neck Imaging with a Dental CBCT Device: Comparison of 360° and 180° Rotation Angles in Effective Dose and Quantitative Image Quality in a Phantom Study Head
Curr. Med. Imaging 21, E15734056316438 (2025); https://doi.org/10.2174/0115734056316438241203095215
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056316438241203095215
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056316438241203095215
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keyword(s): Cone-Beam computed tomography; Contrast-to-noise ratio; Dental; Radiation; Radiography; Signal-to-noise ratio

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test