Abstract
Image quality in CBCT can be objectively defined or subjectively judged. Objective definition relies on parameters such as noise, spatial and contrast resolution, as well as artifact content of the images. Knowledge on these parameters and their influence on the resulting images is essential for correct reading of the images in a clinical setting to avoid misinterpretation. This chapter explains and discusses these objective quality parameters, their impact on the CBCT-images, as well as their clinical relevance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Brüllmann D, Schulze RK (2015) Spatial resolution in CBCT machines for dental/maxillofacial applications-what do we know today? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 44:20140204
Bryant JA, Drage NA, Richmond S (2008) Study of the scan uniformity from an i-CAT cone beam computed tomography dental imaging system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 37:365–374
Chakeres DW (1984) Clinical significance of partial volume averaging of the temporal bone. Am J Neuroradiol 5:297–302
Chen L, Shaw CC, Altunbas MC, Lai CJ, Liu X (2008) Spatial resolution properties in cone beam CT: a simulation study. Med Phys 35:724–734
Doi K (2006) Diagnostic imaging over the last 50 years: research and development in medical imaging science and technology. Phys Med Biol 51:R5–R27
Draenert FG, Coppenrath E, Herzog P et al (2007) Beam hardening artifacts occur in dental implant scans with the NewTom come beam CT but not with the dental 4-row multidetector CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36:198–203
Feldkamp LA, Davis LC, Kress JW (1984) Practical cone-beam algorithm. J Opt Soc Am A 1:612–619
Geyer LL, Schoepf J, Meinel FG, Nance JW, Bastarrika G, Leipsic JA, Paul NS, Rengo M, Laghi A, De Cecco CN (2015) State of the art: iterative CT reconstruction techniques. Radiology 276:339–357
Glover GH, Pelc NJ (1980) Nonlinear partial volume artifacts in x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 7:238–248
Hashimoto K, Arai Y, Iwai K et al (2003) A comparison of a new limited cone beam computed tomography machine for dental use with a multi-detector row helical CT machine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 95:371–377
Hashimoto K, Katsumata S, Araki M et al (2006) Comparison of image performance between cone beam computed tomography for dental use and four-row multi-detector helical CT. J Oral Sci 48:27–34
Hsieh J (2002) Computed tomography: principles, design, artifacts, and recent advances. SPIE Optical Engineering Press, Bellingham, WA
Joseph PM, Spital RD (1981) The exponential edge-gradient effect in x-ray computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 26:473–487
Kalender WA (2005) Computed tomography. Fundamentals, system technology, image quality, applications, 2nd edn. Puplicis Corporate Publishing, Erlangen
Kalender W (2006) X-ray computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 51:R29–R43
Kalender WA, Kyriakou Y (2007) Flat-detector computed tomography (FD-CT). Eur Radiol 17:2767–2779
Lagravere MO, Carey J, Ben-Zvi M, Packota GV, Major PW (2008) Effect of object location on the density measurement and Hounsfield conversion in a NewTom 3G cone beam computed tomography unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 37:305–308
Loubele M, Maes F, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D, White SC, Suetens P (2008) Comparative study of image quality for MSCT and CBCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial radiology applications. Radiat Prot Dosim 129:222–226
Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD (2010) Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 39:323–335
Molteni R (2013) Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 116:105–119
Mueller K (1998) Fast and accurate three-dimensional reconstruction from cone-beam projection data using algebraic methods. Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus
Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R (2011) Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:873–879
Pauwels R, Stamatakis H, Manousaridis G, Walker A, Michielsen K, Bosmans H, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R, Horner K, Tsiklakis K (2011) Development and applicability of a quality control phantom for dental cone-beam CT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 12:3478
Qu XM, Li G, Ludlow JB, Zhang ZY, Ma XC (2010) Effective radiation dose of ProMax 3D cone-beam computerized tomography scanner with different dental protocols. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 110:770–776
Schulze RK, Berndt D, d’Hoedt B (2010) On cone-beam computed tomography artifacts induced by titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:100–107
Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, Schoemer E (2011) Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 40:265–273
Siewerdsen JH, Jaffray JH (2001) Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: magnitude and effects of x-ray scatter. Med Phys 28:220–231
Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Käser Y, Peltola J, Kortesniemi M (2009) Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 38:367–378
Tuy K (1983) An inversion formula for cone-beam reconstruction. SIAM J Appl Math 43:546–552
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schulze, R., Scarfe, W.C., Molteni, R., Mozzo, P. (2018). Image Quality. In: Scarfe, W., Angelopoulos, C. (eds) Maxillofacial Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62061-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62061-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62059-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62061-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)