+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

A comparative study for image quality and radiation dose of a cone beam computed tomography scanner and a multislice computed tomography scanner for paranasal sinus imaging



A comparative study for image quality and radiation dose of a cone beam computed tomography scanner and a multislice computed tomography scanner for paranasal sinus imaging



European Radiology 25(7): 1891-1900



To evaluate image quality and radiation dose of a state of the art cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) system and a multislice computed tomography (MSCT) system in patients with sinonasal poliposis. In this retrospective study two radiologists evaluated 57 patients with sinonasal poliposis who underwent a CBCT or MSCT sinus examination, along with a control group of 90 patients with normal radiological findings. Tissue doses were measured using a phantom model with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD). Overall image quality in CBCT was scored significantly higher than in MSCT in patients with normal radiologic findings (p-value: 0.00001). In patients with sinonasal poliposis, MSCT scored significantly higher than CBCT (p-value: 0.00001). The average effective dose for MSCT was 42% higher compared to CBCT (108 μSv vs 63 μSv). CBCT and MSCT are both suited for the evaluation of sinonasal poliposis. In patients with sinonasal poliposis, clinically important structures of the paranasal sinuses can be better delineated with MSCT, whereas in patients without sinonasal poliposis, CBCT turns out to define the important structures of the sinonasal region better. However, given the lower radiation dose, CBCT can be considered for the evaluation of the sinonasal structures in patients with sinonasal poliposis. • CBCT and MSCT are both suited for evaluation of sinonasal poliposis. • Effective dose for MSCT was 42% higher compared to CBCT. • In patients with sinonasal poliposis, clinically important anatomical structures are better delineated with MSCT. • In patients with normal radiological findings, clinically important anatomical structures are better delineated with CBCT.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 057055926

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 25773935

DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-3593-7


Related references

Cone beam computed tomography for imaging orbital trauma--image quality and radiation dose compared with conventional multislice computed tomography. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 52(1): 76-80, 2014

Cone beam computed tomography and low-dose multislice computed tomography in orthodontics and dentistry: a comparative evaluation on image quality and radiation exposure. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics 75(5): 384-398, 2014

Dose and image quality of cone-beam computed tomography as compared with conventional multislice computed tomography in abdominal imaging. Investigative Radiology 49(10): 675-684, 2014

Comparative study of image quality and radiation dose of cone beam and low-dose multislice computed tomography--an in-vitro investigation. Clinical Oral Investigations 18(1): 301-311, 2014

Comparison of a Novel Weightbearing Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scanner Versus a Conventional Computed Tomography Scanner for Measuring Patellar Instability. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 4(12): 2325967116673560, 2016

Effects of Dose Reduction on Diagnostic Image Quality of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography in Children Using a Third-Generation Dual-Source Computed Tomography Scanner. American Journal of Cardiology 122(7): 1260-1264, 2018

Comparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conventional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontics 107(4): 559-565, 2009

Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology 38(6): 367-378, 2009

Accuracy in contouring of small and low contrast lesions: comparison between diagnostic quality computed tomography scanner and computed tomography simulation scanner-A phantom study. Medical Dosimetry 37(4): 401-405, 2012

Computed tomography dose assessment for a 160 mm wide, 320 detector row, cone beam CT scanner. Physics in Medicine and Biology 54(10): 3141-3159, 2009

Limited cone-beam computed tomography imaging of the middle ear: a comparison with multislice helical computed tomography. Acta Radiologica 48(2): 207-212, 2007

Comparative dosimetry of dental cone beam computed tomography, panoramic radiography, and multislice computed tomography. Oral Radiology 28(1): 32-37, 2012

Finger fractures imaging: accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography and multislice computed tomography. Skeletal Radiology 39(11): 1087-1095, 2010

Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. La Radiologia Medica 115(4): 600-611, 2010

Image quality vs radiation dose of four cone beam computed tomography scanners. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology 37(6): 309-318, 2008