Amanda Ramage, Bryan Lopez Gutierrez, Kathleen Fischer, Michael Sekula, Gustavo Machado Santaella, William Scarfe, Danieli Moura Brasil, Christiano de Oliveira-Santos
{"title":"CBCT的滤波反投影与迭代重建:对图像噪声和处理时间的影响。","authors":"Amanda Ramage, Bryan Lopez Gutierrez, Kathleen Fischer, Michael Sekula, Gustavo Machado Santaella, William Scarfe, Danieli Moura Brasil, Christiano de Oliveira-Santos","doi":"10.1259/dmfr.20230109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the effect of standard filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR) methods on CBCT image noise and processing time (PT), acquired with various acquisition parameters with and without metal artefact reduction (MAR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CBCT scans using the Midmark EIOS unit of a human mandible embedded in soft tissue equivalent material with and without the presence of an implant at mandibular first molar region were acquired at various acquisition settings (milliamperages [4mA-14mA], FOV [5 × 5, 6 × 8, 9 × 10 cm], and resolutions [low, standard, high] and reconstructed using standard FBP and IR, and with and without MAR. The processing time was recorded for each reconstruction. ImageJ was used to analyze specific axial images. Radial transaxial fiducial lines were created relative to the implant site. Standard deviations of the gray density values (image noise) were calculated at fixed distances on the fiducial lines on the buccal and lingual aspects at specific axial levels, and mean values for FBP and IR were compared using paired t-tests. Significance was defined as <i>p</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall mean for image noise (± SD) for FBP was 198.65 ± 55.58 and 99.84 ± 16.28 for IR. IR significantly decreased image noise compared to FBP at all acquisition parameters (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Noise reduction among different scanning protocols ranged between 29.7% (5 × 5 cm FOV) and 58.1% (5mA). IR increased processing time by an average of 35.1 s.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IR significantly reduces CBCT image noise compared to standard FBP without substantially increasing processing time.</p>","PeriodicalId":11261,"journal":{"name":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","volume":" ","pages":"20230109"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10968759/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Filtered back projection vs. iterative reconstruction for CBCT: effects on image noise and processing time.\",\"authors\":\"Amanda Ramage, Bryan Lopez Gutierrez, Kathleen Fischer, Michael Sekula, Gustavo Machado Santaella, William Scarfe, Danieli Moura Brasil, Christiano de Oliveira-Santos\",\"doi\":\"10.1259/dmfr.20230109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the effect of standard filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR) methods on CBCT image noise and processing time (PT), acquired with various acquisition parameters with and without metal artefact reduction (MAR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CBCT scans using the Midmark EIOS unit of a human mandible embedded in soft tissue equivalent material with and without the presence of an implant at mandibular first molar region were acquired at various acquisition settings (milliamperages [4mA-14mA], FOV [5 × 5, 6 × 8, 9 × 10 cm], and resolutions [low, standard, high] and reconstructed using standard FBP and IR, and with and without MAR. The processing time was recorded for each reconstruction. ImageJ was used to analyze specific axial images. Radial transaxial fiducial lines were created relative to the implant site. Standard deviations of the gray density values (image noise) were calculated at fixed distances on the fiducial lines on the buccal and lingual aspects at specific axial levels, and mean values for FBP and IR were compared using paired t-tests. Significance was defined as <i>p</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall mean for image noise (± SD) for FBP was 198.65 ± 55.58 and 99.84 ± 16.28 for IR. IR significantly decreased image noise compared to FBP at all acquisition parameters (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Noise reduction among different scanning protocols ranged between 29.7% (5 × 5 cm FOV) and 58.1% (5mA). IR increased processing time by an average of 35.1 s.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IR significantly reduces CBCT image noise compared to standard FBP without substantially increasing processing time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11261,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dento maxillo facial radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"20230109\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10968759/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dento maxillo facial radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20230109\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20230109","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:评估标准滤波反投影(FBP)和迭代重建(IR)方法对CBCT图像噪声和处理时间(PT)的影响,方法:在不同采集设置下(毫安[4mA-14mA],视野[5×5,6×8,9×10 cm]和分辨率[低,标准,高],并使用标准FBP和IR重建,以及使用和不使用MAR。记录每次重建的处理时间。ImageJ用于分析特定的轴向图像。创建相对于植入部位的径向轴间基准线。在特定轴向水平下,在颊侧和舌侧基准线上的固定距离处计算灰度密度值(图像噪声)的标准差,并使用配对t检验比较FBP和IR的平均值。显著性定义为p<0.05。结果:FBP的图像噪声(±SD)的总体平均值为198.65±55.58 IR为99.84±16.28。在所有采集参数下,与FBP相比,IR显著降低了图像噪声(p<0.05)。不同扫描方案的噪声降低范围在29.7%(5×5 cm FOV)和58.1%(5mA)。IR使处理时间平均增加35.1 结论:与标准FBP相比,IR显著降低了CBCT图像噪声,而没有显著增加处理时间。
Filtered back projection vs. iterative reconstruction for CBCT: effects on image noise and processing time.
Objectives: To assess the effect of standard filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR) methods on CBCT image noise and processing time (PT), acquired with various acquisition parameters with and without metal artefact reduction (MAR).
Methods: CBCT scans using the Midmark EIOS unit of a human mandible embedded in soft tissue equivalent material with and without the presence of an implant at mandibular first molar region were acquired at various acquisition settings (milliamperages [4mA-14mA], FOV [5 × 5, 6 × 8, 9 × 10 cm], and resolutions [low, standard, high] and reconstructed using standard FBP and IR, and with and without MAR. The processing time was recorded for each reconstruction. ImageJ was used to analyze specific axial images. Radial transaxial fiducial lines were created relative to the implant site. Standard deviations of the gray density values (image noise) were calculated at fixed distances on the fiducial lines on the buccal and lingual aspects at specific axial levels, and mean values for FBP and IR were compared using paired t-tests. Significance was defined as p < 0.05.
Results: The overall mean for image noise (± SD) for FBP was 198.65 ± 55.58 and 99.84 ± 16.28 for IR. IR significantly decreased image noise compared to FBP at all acquisition parameters (p < 0.05). Noise reduction among different scanning protocols ranged between 29.7% (5 × 5 cm FOV) and 58.1% (5mA). IR increased processing time by an average of 35.1 s.
Conclusions: IR significantly reduces CBCT image noise compared to standard FBP without substantially increasing processing time.
期刊介绍:
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (DMFR) is the journal of the International Association of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (IADMFR) and covers the closely related fields of oral radiology and head and neck imaging.
Established in 1972, DMFR is a key resource keeping dentists, radiologists and clinicians and scientists with an interest in Head and Neck imaging abreast of important research and developments in oral and maxillofacial radiology.
The DMFR editorial board features a panel of international experts including Editor-in-Chief Professor Ralf Schulze. Our editorial board provide their expertise and guidance in shaping the content and direction of the journal.
Quick Facts:
- 2015 Impact Factor - 1.919
- Receipt to first decision - average of 3 weeks
- Acceptance to online publication - average of 3 weeks
- Open access option
- ISSN: 0250-832X
- eISSN: 1476-542X