Volume 12, Issue 2 (2023)                   WJPS 2023, 12(2): 77-89 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Shokri A, Foroozandeh M, Doosti Irani A, Asalian S. Comparison of Diagnostic Quality of Multidetector Computed Tomography and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in High and Low Resolution Modes for Assessment of the Nasal Cavity. WJPS 2023; 12 (2) :77-89
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-1073-en.html
1- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental School, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
2- Department of Epidemiology, School of Health Sciences Research Center, Health Sciences & Technology Research Institute, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
Abstract:   (998 Views)
Background: We aimed to compare the diagnostic quality of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in high (HR) and low (LR) resolution modes for assessment of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses.
Methods: This in vitro study was conducted on 5 dry human skulls by using a CBCT and a MDCT scanner in HR and LR modes to assess their diagnostic quality for 21 anatomical landmarks of the nose. The quality of images was evaluated by two oral and maxillofacial radiologists and a dentist using a four-point Likert scale of (I) poor, (II) decreased, (III) good, and (IV) excellent. Data were analyzed by STATA at 95% confidence interval. The Chi-square test was applied to compare the quality of visualization of landmarks based on the type of scanner.
Results: The diagnostic quality of HR CBCT and CT for the majority of landmarks was higher than that of LR CBCT and CT (P<0.05). The diagnostic quality of HR CBCT for agger nasi cells (P=0.010), olfactory cleft (P=0.032), sphenoethmoidal recess (P=0.032), and nasolacrimal duct (P=0.014) and LR CBCT for the middle turbinate (P=0.046) and middle meatus (P=0.031) was significantly higher than that of MDCT.
Conclusion: The diagnostic quality of HR CBCT and CT for the majority of the landmarks in the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses was higher than that of LR CBCT and CT. For the majority of landmarks, the diagnostic quality of CBCT and CT was the same; while for some landmarks, the diagnostic quality of HR and LR CBCT was higher than HR and LR CT. In general, CBCT has high efficacy for evaluation of the paranasal sinuses and the nasal cavity, and provides diagnostic information comparable to those provided by CT, but with a much lower radiation dose.
Full-Text [PDF 1439 kb]   (655 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Article | Subject: Special
ePublished: 2023/09/23

1. Almashraqi AA, Ahmed EA, Mohamed NS, Barngkgei IH, Elsherbini NA, Halboub ES. Evaluation of different low-dose multidetector CT and cone beam CT protocols in maxillary sinus imaging: part I-an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017; 46(6):20160323.doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20160323. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr.20160323]
2. Parks ET. Cone beam computed tomography for the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. Dent Clin North Am 2014 Jul 1; 58(3):627-51.doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2014.04.003. [DOI:10.1016/j.cden.2014.04.003]
3. Shokri A, Faradmal MJ, Hekmat B. Correlations between anatomical variations of the nasal cavity and ethmoidal sinuses on cone-beam computed tomography scans. Imaging Sci Dent 2019 Jun 1; 49(2):103-13.doi: 10.5624/isd.2019.49.2.103. [DOI:10.5624/isd.2019.49.2.103]
4. Salemi F, Shokri A, Foroozandeh M, Farhadian M, Yeganeh A. Knowledge level of Iranian dental practitioners towards digital radiography and cone beam computed tomography. Braz Dent Sci 2021; 24(2):1-10.doi: 10.14295/bds.2021.v24i2.2442. [DOI:10.14295/bds.2021.v24i2.2442]
5. Veldhoen S, Schöllchen M, Hanken H, Precht C, Henes FO, Schön G, et al. Performance of cone-beam computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography in diagnostic imaging of the midface: a comparative study on phantom and cadaver head scans. Eur Radiol 2017; 27(2):790-800.doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4387-2. [DOI:10.1007/s00330-016-4387-2]
6. Szabo BT, Aksoy Si, Repassy G, Csomo K, Dobo-Nagy C, Orhan K. Comparison of hand and semiautomatic tracing methods for creating maxillofacial artificial organs using sequences of computed tomography (CT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Int J Artif Organs 2017; 40(6):307-12.doi: 10.5301/ijao.5000580. [DOI:10.5301/ijao.5000580]
7. Pirimoglu B, Sade R, Sakat MS, Ogul H, Levent A, Kantarci M. Low-dose noncontrast examination of the paranasal sinuses using volumetric computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2018; 42(3):482-6.doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000699. [DOI:10.1097/RCT.0000000000000699]
8. Knörgen M, Brandt S, Kösling S. Comparison of quality on digital X-ray devices with 3D-capability for ENT-clinical objectives in imaging of temporal bone and paranasal sinuses. RoFo 2012; 184(12):1153-60.doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1325343. [DOI:10.1055/s-0032-1325343]
9. Tschauner S, Marterer R, Nagy E. et al. Experiences with image quality and radiation dose of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in pediatric extremity trauma. Skeletal Radiol 2020; 49(12):1939-1949.doi: 10.1007/s00256-020-03506-9. [DOI:10.1007/s00256-020-03506-9]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | World Journal of Plastic Surgery

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb