Cone beam computed tomography and low-dose multislice computed tomography in orthodontics and dentistry A comparative evaluation on image quality and radiation exposure

The goal of the present work was to assess various computed tomography (CT) systems in term of image quality and organ doses, namely five cone-beam CT (CBCT) scanners operated at standard settings and three multislice CT (MSCT) scanners operated at greatly dose-reduced settings. Radiographic volume scans were taken on a complete human cadaveric head specimen and the image quality of each was rated by four experienced examiners according to specific skeletal structures and bone-soft tissue interfaces. Radiation doses were captured by a head-and-neck phantom (Rando; Alderson Research Laboratories). Standard protocols were used for the CBCT scans. For the MSCT scans, tube voltage and current were adjusted to minimize radiation without compromising image quality. Interobserver agreement was close to perfect, with iota coefficients of 0.931 (95 % CI 0.807-0.978) between groups 1 and 2 and 0.959 (95 % CI 0.869-1.000) between groups 1 and 3. Ratings of image quality in terms of skeletal-structure representation were slightly better for the CBCT than the MSCT scanners, although these differences were not statistically significant. The two groups of scanners applied considerably different organ doses: the lowest dose (0.03 mSv) was measured on the bone surface with a CBCT unit (Picasso TrioA (R) from Vatech) and the highest dose (8.30 mSv) in the vicinity of the eye lens with another CBCT unit (3D Accuitomo 170A (R) from J. Morita). The various systems tested offer similar imaging quality but demonstrated distinct differences in organ dose levels. The decision on which approach to take is not between CBCT and MSCT but rather between specific models and parameter settings. If these are optimized, MSCT images providing useful clinical information can be obtained at much reduced levels of radiation. Depending on the model and setting used, MSCT radiation levels may even be lower than during CBCT scans.