We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Performance of cone-beam computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography in diagnostic imaging of the midface: A comparative study on Phantom and cadaver head scans.
European Radiology 2017 Februrary
PURPOSE: To compare multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) regarding radiation, resolution, image noise, and image quality.
METHODS: CBCT and 256-MDCT were compared based on three scan protocols: Standard-dose (≈24 mGy), reduced-dose (≈9 mGy), and low-dose (≈4 mGy). MDCT images were acquired in standard- and high-resolution mode (HR-MDCT) and reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR). Spatial resolution in linepairs (lp) and objective image noise (OIN) were assessed using dedicated phantoms. Image quality was assessed in scans of 25 cadaver heads using a Likert scale.
RESULTS: OIN was markedly higher in FBP-MDCT when compared to CBCT. IR lowered the OIN to comparable values in standard-mode MDCT only. CBCT provided a resolution of 13 lp/cm at standard-dose and 11 lp/cm at reduced-dose vs. 11 lp/cm and 10 lp/cm in HR-MDCT. Resolution of 10 lp/cm was observed for both devices using low-dose settings. Quality scores of MDCT and CBCT did not differ at standard-dose (CBCT, 3.4; MDCT, 3.3-3.5; p > 0.05). Using reduced- and low-dose protocols, CBCT was superior (reduced-dose, 3.2 vs. 2.8; low dose, 3.0 vs. 2.3; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Using the low-dose protocol, the assessed CBCT provided better objective and subjective image quality and equality in resolution. Similar image quality, but better resolution using CBCT was observed at higher exposure settings.
KEY POINTS: • The assessed CBCT device provided better image quality at lower doses. • Objective and subjective image quality were comparable using higher exposure settings. • CBCT showed superior spatial resolution in standard-dose and reduced-dose settings. • Modern noise-reducing tools are used in CBCT devices currently. • MDCT should be preferred for assessment of soft-tissue injuries and oncologic imaging.
METHODS: CBCT and 256-MDCT were compared based on three scan protocols: Standard-dose (≈24 mGy), reduced-dose (≈9 mGy), and low-dose (≈4 mGy). MDCT images were acquired in standard- and high-resolution mode (HR-MDCT) and reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR). Spatial resolution in linepairs (lp) and objective image noise (OIN) were assessed using dedicated phantoms. Image quality was assessed in scans of 25 cadaver heads using a Likert scale.
RESULTS: OIN was markedly higher in FBP-MDCT when compared to CBCT. IR lowered the OIN to comparable values in standard-mode MDCT only. CBCT provided a resolution of 13 lp/cm at standard-dose and 11 lp/cm at reduced-dose vs. 11 lp/cm and 10 lp/cm in HR-MDCT. Resolution of 10 lp/cm was observed for both devices using low-dose settings. Quality scores of MDCT and CBCT did not differ at standard-dose (CBCT, 3.4; MDCT, 3.3-3.5; p > 0.05). Using reduced- and low-dose protocols, CBCT was superior (reduced-dose, 3.2 vs. 2.8; low dose, 3.0 vs. 2.3; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Using the low-dose protocol, the assessed CBCT provided better objective and subjective image quality and equality in resolution. Similar image quality, but better resolution using CBCT was observed at higher exposure settings.
KEY POINTS: • The assessed CBCT device provided better image quality at lower doses. • Objective and subjective image quality were comparable using higher exposure settings. • CBCT showed superior spatial resolution in standard-dose and reduced-dose settings. • Modern noise-reducing tools are used in CBCT devices currently. • MDCT should be preferred for assessment of soft-tissue injuries and oncologic imaging.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app