Comparing Anthropometric and Quality Assurance Phantoms in Quantitative Image Quality Testing for CBCT Imaging

Authors : Hakan Amasya, Şelale Özel, Duygu Tunçman, Songül Çavdar Karaçam, Kaan Orhan, Mustafa Demir

Pages : 101-108

Doi:10.54617/adoklinikbilimler.1546507

View : 61 | Download : 61

Publication Date : 2025-05-26

Article Type : Research Paper

Abstract :Aim: This study aims to imaging an anthropometric phantom and a quality assurance (QA) phantom with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in three different dose protocols and to compare the quantitative image quality test values calculated with the anthropometric phantom with the QA phantom results in selected slices. Thus, it is aimed to produce information regarding the validity of image quality tests performed with anthropometric phantom slices. Materials and Method: Alderson-Rando® phantom (Radiology Support Devices, Long Beach, CA) and QA phantom (QR Verona, Italy) were imaged with a MyRay Hyperion X9 Pro (Cefla, Imola, Italy) KIBT device. The field of view was chosen as 13x10 cm and three different imaging modes (Low Dose, Normal, High Quality) were implemented while keeping other parameters constant. Three slices were selected from the anthropometric phantom volumes (paranasal sinus, maxilla, mandible) and one slice from the QA phantom. A total of 12 image samples were imported into ImageJ software for signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio calculations. Differences between three or more variables (Low Dose, Normal, High Quality, or paranasal sinus, maxilla, mandible and QA phantom slices) were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis test, while the relationship between pairs of variables was analyzed by Spearman and Kendall’s rank correlation coefficient. The statistical significance threshold was set as p<0.05. Results: The differences between the selected slices (paranasal sinus, maxilla, mandible, QA) and imaging modes (Low Dose, Routine, High Quality) were both statistically insignificant. According to Spearman’s ρ, the correlation between QA phantom and maxillary and mandibular slices was statistically significant. SNR values for maxillary and mandibular slices were calculated between 12.6 and 23.1 for anthropometric phantom slices and between 16.2 and 23.3 for QA phantom slices. The CNR values were between 13.2 and 88.5 for the respective anthropometric phantom slices and 15.5 and 20.6 for the QA phantom. Conclusion: The results of this study support that the measurements made with anthropometric phantom slices for image quality testing in CBCT are similar to those made with the QA phantom in the maxilla and mandible regions. Future studies with different phantom types, imaging systems and radiographic parameters may be considered to produce information about the advantages and disadvantages of the two phantom types in image quality testing.
Keywords : radyoloji, konik-ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi, kalite kontrol

ORIGINAL ARTICLE URL