An audit of image quality of three dental cone beam computed tomography units

C. J. Greenall; Bethan Thomas; N. A. Drage; John Brown

doi:10.1016/j.radi.2015.05.008

An audit of image quality of three dental cone beam computed tomography units

C. J. Greenall^*, Bethan Thomas, N. A. Drage, John Brown

^*Corresponding author for this work

Comprehensive Cancer Centre

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Critical analysis of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) image quality is recommended as part of a quality assurance program.1,2 There are few papers3 in the literature concerning subjective image quality on CBCT imaging.This study, performed as part of an audit, reviewed all images of the jaws performed on three different CBCT units over a twelve month period. Images were graded according to an agreed standard1 and reasons for image rejection recorded.The results demonstrated that the main reasons for image rejection were motion artefact and problems with field of view size and positioning.The need for reducing the number of rejected images in order to optimize patient dose, and ways to achieve this, are discussed.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	56–59
Journal	Radiography (London)
Volume	22
Issue number	1
Early online date	27 Jun 2015
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2015.05.008
Publication status	Published - Feb 2016

Keywords

Cone beam computed tomography
Dental imaging
Quality assurance

Access to Document

10.1016/j.radi.2015.05.008

Cite this

@article{36786e7a03ee4a9fad959c760686b84f,

title = "An audit of image quality of three dental cone beam computed tomography units",

abstract = "Critical analysis of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) image quality is recommended as part of a quality assurance program.1,2 There are few papers3 in the literature concerning subjective image quality on CBCT imaging.This study, performed as part of an audit, reviewed all images of the jaws performed on three different CBCT units over a twelve month period. Images were graded according to an agreed standard1 and reasons for image rejection recorded.The results demonstrated that the main reasons for image rejection were motion artefact and problems with field of view size and positioning.The need for reducing the number of rejected images in order to optimize patient dose, and ways to achieve this, are discussed.",

keywords = "Cone beam computed tomography, Dental imaging, Quality assurance",

author = "Greenall, {C. J.} and Bethan Thomas and Drage, {N. A.} and John Brown",

year = "2016",

month = feb,

doi = "10.1016/j.radi.2015.05.008",

language = "English",

volume = "22",

pages = "56–59",

journal = "Radiography (London)",

issn = "1078-8174",

publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An audit of image quality of three dental cone beam computed tomography units

AU - Greenall, C. J.

AU - Thomas, Bethan

AU - Drage, N. A.

AU - Brown, John

PY - 2016/2

Y1 - 2016/2

N2 - Critical analysis of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) image quality is recommended as part of a quality assurance program.1,2 There are few papers3 in the literature concerning subjective image quality on CBCT imaging.This study, performed as part of an audit, reviewed all images of the jaws performed on three different CBCT units over a twelve month period. Images were graded according to an agreed standard1 and reasons for image rejection recorded.The results demonstrated that the main reasons for image rejection were motion artefact and problems with field of view size and positioning.The need for reducing the number of rejected images in order to optimize patient dose, and ways to achieve this, are discussed.

AB - Critical analysis of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) image quality is recommended as part of a quality assurance program.1,2 There are few papers3 in the literature concerning subjective image quality on CBCT imaging.This study, performed as part of an audit, reviewed all images of the jaws performed on three different CBCT units over a twelve month period. Images were graded according to an agreed standard1 and reasons for image rejection recorded.The results demonstrated that the main reasons for image rejection were motion artefact and problems with field of view size and positioning.The need for reducing the number of rejected images in order to optimize patient dose, and ways to achieve this, are discussed.

KW - Cone beam computed tomography

KW - Dental imaging

KW - Quality assurance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84933059679&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.radi.2015.05.008

DO - 10.1016/j.radi.2015.05.008

M3 - Article

SN - 1078-8174

VL - 22

SP - 56

EP - 59

JO - Radiography (London)

JF - Radiography (London)

IS - 1

ER -

An audit of image quality of three dental cone beam computed tomography units

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this