Subjective Image Quality of Cone-Beam CT, Developed by NSTDA, Thailand
Objective: To compare CBCT image quality on visibility of anatomical structures between the CBCT scanner manufactured in Thailand and the commercial Promax 3D® scanner from Finland.
Materials and Methods: Three human skulls were radiographed using the DentiScan® (NSTDA, Thailand) and the Promax 3D® (Helsinki, Finland). Five observers reviewed the CBCT images and assessed the image quality on the visibility of twelve anatomical structures related to the dental tasks, on a five-point scale (1 = excellent; 2 = good; 3 = acceptable; 4 = poor; 5 = very poor). Overall variation in the visibility from all anatomical structures and per structure were analyzed and compared using Wilcoxon signed rank test (p<0.05).
Results: When all anatomical structures were considered in total, the images from the Promax 3D® gave better subjective image quality than those from the DentiScan® (p-value = 0.0000). When each structure was considered, the results showed higher visibility score for images from Promax 3D® in most of the structures. However, it was found that the median scores for the visibility of the structures from the DentiScan® were rated as good to excellent for mental foramen, incisive foramen, cortical bone, trabecular bone, floor of the maxillary sinus, enamel, dentine, and pulp canal; as acceptable for mandibular canal and lingual foramen; and as bad to very bad for periodontal ligament space and lamina dura.
Conclusions: Compared to the commercial Promax 3D®, the DentiScan® gave lesser image quality on the visibility of the human skull and jaws structures. However, the visibility score were rated as acceptable to excellent for most of the structures for the DentiScan®. The DentiScan®, the CBCT scanner manufactured in Thailand, can be another choice of CBCT machine for general dental tasks, except the tasks that require high image resolution such as the detection of root fracture.
1. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. Cone-beam computed tomography. In: White SC and Pharoah MJ, eds. Oral Radiology Principles and Interpretation. 6th ed, St. Louis: Mosby; 2009: 225-243.
2. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 219-226.
3. Lascala CA, Panella J, Marques MM. Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 291- 294.
4. Dreiseidler T, Mischkowski RA, Neugebauer J, Ritter L, Zöller JE. Comparison of cone-beam imaging with orthopantomography and computerized tomography for assessment in presurgical implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24: 216-25.
5. Rugani P, Kirnbauer B, Arnetzl GV, Jakse N. Cone beam computerized tomography: basics for digital planning in oral surgery and implantology. Int J Comput Dent 2009; 12: 131-45.
6. Monsour PA, Dudhia R. Implant radiography and radiology. Aust Dent J 2008 Jun; Suppl 1:S11-25.
7. Peck JN, Conte GJ. Radiologic techniques using CBCT and 3-D treatment planning for implant placement. J Calif Dent Assoc 2008; 36: 287-90, 292-4, 296-297.
8. Marmulla R, Wortche R, Muhling J, Hassfeld S. Geometry accuracy of the NewTom 9000 Cone Beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005; 34: 28-31.
9. Holberg C, Steinhuser S, Geis P, Rudzki-Janson I. Cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics: benefits and limitations. J Orofac Orthop 2005; 66: 434-444.
10. Shitaku WH, Venturin JS, Azevedo B, Noujeim M. Applications of cone-beam computed tomography in fractures of the maxillofacial complex. Dent Traumatol 2009; 25: 358-366.
11. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hasson B, Li L, et al. A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Muti-Slide CT (MSCT). Part I. On subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.042.
12. Brooks SL. Guidelines for prescribing dental radiographs. In: White SC, Pharoah WJ, eds: Oral Radiology Principles and Interpretation. 6th ed., St. Louis: Mosby; 2009: 244-254.
13. นภาพงษ์ พงษ์นภางค์ และ เสาวภาคย์ ธงวิตรมณี รายงานผลการทดสอบปริมาณรังสีเครื่อง Dental CT (DentiScan) 2554 หน้า 1-6.
14. Qu XM, Li G, Ludlow JB, Zhang ZY, Ma XC. Effective radiation dose of ProMax 3D conebeam computerized tomography scanner with different dental protocols. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 110: 770- 776.
15. เสาวภาคย์ ธงวิตรมณี, จาตุวัฒน์ ราชเรืองระบิน, วลิตะ นาคบัวแก้ว, วีระ สะอิ้ง, สรพงษ์ อู่ตะเภา รายงานผลการ ทดสอบความถูกต้องของภาพที่ได้จากเครื่อง DentiScan (Dental CT Scanner) 2554 หน้า 1-19.
16. Zhang ZL, Cheng JG, Li G, Zhang JZ, Zhang ZY, Ma XC. Measurement accuracy of temporomandibular joint space in Promax 3-dimensional cone-beam computerized tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2012; 114: 112-117.