Image quality of two different mobile cone beam computed tomographs for maxillofacial surgery

Seeberger, Robin; Buchgeister, Markus; Seethaler, A. C.; Shiozawa, Thomas; Hoffmann, Juergen

doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2012.01.008

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Often, these 3D scans are considered equal to CT scans regarding the parameters reduction and implant placement. Standardized technical evaluation of possible image quality of intraoperative and image quality in anatomical regions without implants has been described in several publications [ 16 , 17 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures—limitations of 3D-imaging compared to computed tomography

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn acetabular fractures, the assessment of reduction and implant placement has limitations in conventional 2D intraoperative imaging. 3D imaging offers the opportunity to acquire CT-like images and thus to improve the results. However, clinical experience shows that even 3D imaging has limitations, especially regarding artifacts when implants are placed. The purpose of this study was to assess the difference between intraoperative 3D imaging and postoperative CT regarding reduction and implant placement.MethodsTwenty consecutive cases of acetabular fractures were selected with a complete set of intraoperative 3D imaging and postoperative CT data. The largest detectable step and the largest detectable gap were measured in all three standard planes. These values were compared between the 3D data sets and CT data sets. Additionally, possible correlations between the possible confounders age and BMI and the difference between 3D and CT values were tested.ResultsThe mean difference of largest visible step between the 3D imaging and CT scan was 2.0 ± 1.8 mm (0.0–5.8, p = 0.02) in the axial, 1.3 ± 1.4 mm (0.0–3.7, p = 0.15) in the sagittal and 1.9 ± 2.4 mm (0.0–7.4, p = 0.22) in the coronal views. The mean difference of largest visible gap between the 3D imaging and CT scan was 3.1 ± 3.6 mm (0.0–14.1, p = 0.03) in the axial, 4.6 ± 2.7 mm (1.2–8.7, p = 0.001) in the sagittal and 3.5 ± 4.0 mm (0.0–15.4, p = 0.06) in the coronal views. A positive correlation between the age and the difference in gap measurements in the sagittal view was shown (rho = 0.556, p = 0.011).ConclusionsIntraoperative 3D imaging is a valuable adjunct in assessing reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures but has limitations due to artifacts caused by implant material. This can lead to missed malreduction and impairment of clinical outcome, so postoperative CT should be considered in these cases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures—limitations of 3D-imaging compared to computed tomography

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Non-circular orbits for cone-beam CT (CBCT) acquisition have been studied extensively. Such orbits offer many possible advantages over circular orbits, including larger fields of view (FOV), improved 3D sampling, and fewer artifacts [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. The potential advantages of such orbits have also been reviewed [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cone-beam CT with a noncircular (sine-on-sphere) orbit: imaging performance of a clinical system for image-guided interventions

Jones

Ahmad

Raza

et al. 2023

Medical Imaging 2023: Physics of Medical Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To compare the image quality characteristics of a cone-beam CT (CBCT) imaging system with noncircular scan protocols (Sine-on-Sphere) to a conventional circular orbit. A phantom was used to assess image uniformity, image noise, and noise-power spectrum (NPS) for a biplane C-arm (Icono; Siemens Healthineers) that could perform CBCT with either a circular or non-circular orbit (Sine-on-Sphere, “SineSpin”). The non-circular orbit used a sinusoidal motion with an amplitude of ±10º during the orbit. Uniformity and quantum noise were similar for the circular and non-circular orbits. A slight increase in cupping artifact for the noncircular orbit was observed and attributed to slightly increased path lengths (increased scatter-to-primary ratio) for oblique rays through the cylindrical phantom. The NPS clearly depicted closing of the “null cone” about the fz spatial frequency axis owing to improved sampling with the non-circular orbit. A non-circular orbit for CBCT resulted in improved sampling with similar noise magnitude and uniformity compared to a circular orbit.

show abstract

“…20 The importance of imaging in the diagnosis and treatment of ICH combined with the risks of patient transport to the scanner suite motivates the development of point-of-care imaging for monitoring and management of patients with brain injury. A variety of commercially available portable imaging systems merit investigation for such application, including mobile C-arms for cone-beam CT (CBCT), 21,22 CBCT systems designed specifically for head imaging, 23,24 portable CT scanners, 25,26 and even portable MRI. 27 Such systems exhibit varying degrees of imaging performance and logistical compatibility with the critical care environment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical assessment of a prototype cone‐beam CT system for imaging of acute intracranial hemorrhage

Sisniega

Zbijewski

et al. 2016

Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Image quality of two different mobile cone beam computed tomographs for maxillofacial surgery

Cited by 6 publications

References 13 publications

Intraoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures—limitations of 3D-imaging compared to computed tomography

Intraoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures—limitations of 3D-imaging compared to computed tomography

Cone-beam CT with a noncircular (sine-on-sphere) orbit: imaging performance of a clinical system for image-guided interventions

Technical assessment of a prototype cone‐beam CT system for imaging of acute intracranial hemorrhage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About