Optimizing cone-beam computed tomography exposure for an effective radiation dose and image quality balance

7Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) acquisition protocols on reducing the effective radiation dose while maintaining image quality. Materials and Methods: The effective dose emitted by a CBCT device was calculated using thermoluminescent dosimeters placed in a Rando Alderson phantom. Image quality was assessed by 3 experienced evaluators. The relationship between image quality and confidence was evaluated using the Fisher exact test, and the agreement among raters was assessed using the kappa test. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to investigate whether the technical parameters could predict the effective dose. P-values< 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Results: The optimized protocol (3 mA, 99 kVp, and 450 projection images) demonstrated good image quality and a lower effective dose for radiation-sensitive organs. Image quality and confidence had consistent values for all structures (P< 0.05). Multiple linear regression analysis resulted in a statistically significant model. The milliamperage (b = 0.504; t = 3.406; P= 0.027), kilovoltage peak (b = 0.589; t = 3.979; P= 0.016) and number of projection images (b = 0.557; t = 3.762; P= 0.020) were predictors of the effective dose. Conclusion: Optimized CBCT acquisition protocols can significantly reduce the effective radiation dose while maintaining acceptable image quality by adjusting the milliamperage and projection images.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Santos, A. A., de Freitas Silva, B. S., Correia, F. F. N., Mezaiko, E., de Souza Roriz, C. F., Silva, M. A. G., … Yamamoto-Silva, F. P. (2024). Optimizing cone-beam computed tomography exposure for an effective radiation dose and image quality balance. Imaging Science in Dentistry, 54(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.20230251

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free