Evaluation of different low-dose multidetector CT and cone beam CT protocols in maxillary sinus imaging: part I—anin vitrostudy

Abstract

The low-dose MDCT and CBCT protocols are viable methods for maxillary sinus examination as evaluated using the above-mentioned phantom that yield a good diagnostic image quality using E approximately 7 and 11 times lower than that of the standard MDCT, respectively. These findings were evaluated in the in vivo part of this project.

Radiation dose in non-dental cone beam CT applications: a systematic review

“…The main reasons for exclusion were that the studies did not focus on the field of dosimetry or did not report the effective dose. Among the 15 papers selected (14 original papers [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] and 1 conference proceeding [41]), two of them analysed two anatomical areas; all the others analysed only one anatomical area ( Table 2). The following anatomical areas were analysed: ear [27][28][29][30][31][32], paranasal sinuses [27,33,34,41], ankle [35][36][37], wrist [38,39], knee [40], and cervical spine [32].…”

“…In the 15 studies examined, 16 CBCT-units (seven different models) were used, of which five were from the USA [29,33,34,36,41], Finland [31,35,37,38,40], and Italy [27,28,32,35,39], and the remaining one from Japan [30]. One study [31] used a modified specific acquisition system that involved a pause during each exposure of the multiple frames to reduce potential motion artefacts generated by the rotating "C" arm.…”

“…Finally, although it is beyond the purpose of the review, two studies [32,33] provided a quantitative assessment of image quality. They are the only two studies published in 2017.…”

“…They also estimated the effective dose of 110 µSv using a larger FOV (18 × 16 cm) by Monte Carlo simulations. Almashraqi et al [33] investigated the paranasal sinuses by TLDs inserted in an Alderson-RANDO phantom. They used a slightly smaller FOV (13 × 10 cm) than Dierckx, and changed both the voxel size (0.25 or 0.30 mm) and the exposure time (2 or 4 s).…”

“…Among all the aforementioned authors, only Nardi et al [32] and Almashraqi et al [33] provided a quantitative assessment of image quality that represents a key element which should be associated with a dosimetric study. In fact, each physical/technical parameter of every CBCT-unit must be optimised in order to limit the exposure, reach a diagnostically acceptable image quality in relation to the clinical query, and allow the comparison of doses using different imaging techniques.…”