Optimization of dental CBCT exposures through mAs reduction

Pauwels, Ruben; Seynaeve, Lieke; Henriques, João César Guimarães; Oliveira‐Santos, Christiano; Souza, Paulo Henrique Couto; Westphalen, Fernando Henrique; Rubira-Bullen, Izabel Regina Fischer; Ribeiro-Rotta, Rejane Faria; Rockenbach, Maria Ivete Bolzan; Haiter-Neto, Francisco; Pittayapat, Pisha; Bosmans, Hilde; Bogaerts, Ria; Jacobs, Reinhilde

doi:10.1259/dmfr.20150108

Cited by 68 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…23,25,30,[32][33][34][35]37,38,40 This conclusion was also supported by the English abstract of the study performed by Sun et al 41 Neves et al 36 went so far as to specify the scanning protocol they believe gives the lowest radiation exposure while maintaining diagnostic quality; however, they also suggested that the position of a particular pathology, in their study root resorption, may have an impact on its detection at lower exposure parameters.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…Of the 22 other full-text articles included in the review, 10 studies looked at the effect of altering the current, [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] 6 studies at altering kilovoltage 19,20,23,24,26,27 and 18 studies at altering exposure time factors 19,21,22,[24][25][26][27][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] (some studies looked at more than one exposure parameter, so this total equals .20 studies). One study 40 investigated the combined effect of current and exposure times on image quality by altering mAs values.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…20,25,27,29,30,[32][33][34][36][37][38] In addition, of these 22 studies, 17 studies reviewed how altering exposure parameters affected the image quality of scans produced for specific diagnostic tasks (Table 1), while 5 studies looked at a range of CBCT exposure protocols which could have been used for several diagnostic tasks. 19,23,29,31,40 Across the total 22 studies reviewed, 23 different names were given for CBCT machines used in the research. At least 19 different CBCT models were used, produced by 10 different companies, and the details provided by 3 studies were inadequate for exact machine model identification.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, many authors also suggested that their results can be used only for the specific diagnostic task(s) on the specific model of the machine which they investigated, and that further research is needed. 21,22,[24][25][26][27]29,30,[32][33][34][35]40 In addition, the studies reviewed here have found it difficult to measure radiation dose from CBCT scans accurately.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four studies 19,21,31,40 used contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) as a quantitative measure of image quality, to provide objective data to complement subjective image quality assessment. However, the materials used to measure CNR can vary; so, comparison between different studies is difficult if the studies have used different materials.…”

Section: Very Lowmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Dose optimization by altering the operating potential and tube current exposure time product in dental cone beam CT: a systematic review

Goulston

Davies

Horner

et al. 2016

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Current guidelines highlight the need to optimize exposure parameters on CBCT equipment to levels that are as low as diagnostically acceptable. This systematic review aimed to answer the question "Can altering operating potential (kV) and tube current exposure time product (mAs) on CBCT machines reduce radiation dose to patients undergoing dental and/ or maxillofacial scans without a detrimental impact on image quality/diagnostic accuracy?" Methods: Studies were selected and results reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method. For each individual study, two authors (RG and JD or KH) independently extracted data using a specifically designed collection form, and an overall quality value was assigned using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Any disagreements in the overall quality value of a study were resolved by discussion between the current authors. Results: Nearly 75% of studies were considered to be of low or very low methodological quality using the GRADE system, and more studies stated that their results applied only in the specific situations they had investigated. However, most studies demonstrated that patient dose reduction is possible without a clinically relevant reduction in image quality. Conclusions: For many CBCT machines, it should be possible to optimize one, or more, of the investigated exposure parameters and therefore reduce patient radiation dose, while maintaining diagnostic image quality for some diagnostic tasks. However, more rigorous research is still required.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Very Lowmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Dose optimization by altering the operating potential and tube current exposure time product in dental cone beam CT: a systematic review

Goulston

Davies

Horner

et al. 2016

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Optimization of cone beam computed tomography image quality in implant dentistry

Alawaji

MacDonald

Giannelis

et al. 2018

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was conducted to optimize the cone beam computed tomography image quality in implant dentistry using both clinical and quantitative image quality evaluation with measurement of the radiation dose. A natural bone human skull phantom and an image quality phantom were used to evaluate the images produced after changing the exposure parameters (kVp and mA). A 10 × 5 cm2 field of view was selected for average adult. Five scans were taken with varying kVp (70–90 kVp) first at fixed 4 mA. After assessment of the scans and selecting the best kVp, nine scans were taken with 2–12 mA, and the kVp was fixed at the optimal value. A clinical assessment of the implant‐related anatomical landmarks was done in random order by two blinded examiners. Quantitative image quality was assessed for noise/uniformity, artifact added value, contrast‐to‐noise ratio, spatial resolution, and geometrical distortion. A dosimetry index phantom and thimble ion chamber were used to measure the absorbed dose for each scan setting. The anatomical landmarks of the maxilla had good image quality at all kVp settings. To produce good quality images, the mandibular landmarks demanded higher exposure parameters than the maxillary landmarks. The quantitative image quality values were acceptable at all selected exposure settings. Changing the exposure parameters does not necessarily produce higher image quality outcomes but does affect the radiation dose to the patient. The image quality could be optimized for implant treatment planning at lower exposure settings and dose than the default settings.

show abstract

Intraoral Radiography in Pediatric Dental Practice

Aps

2019

Imaging in Pediatric Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Optimization of dental CBCT exposures through mAs reduction

Cited by 68 publications

References 25 publications

Dose optimization by altering the operating potential and tube current exposure time product in dental cone beam CT: a systematic review

Dose optimization by altering the operating potential and tube current exposure time product in dental cone beam CT: a systematic review

Optimization of cone beam computed tomography image quality in implant dentistry

Intraoral Radiography in Pediatric Dental Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About