METHODS: A user-friendly software was developed to accurately predict the individual size-specific dose estimation of paediatric patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) scans of the head, thorax, and abdomen. The software includes a calculation equation developed based on a novel SSDE prediction equation that used a population's pre-determined percentage difference between volume-weighted computed tomography dose index (CTDIvol) and SSDE with age. American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM RPT 204) method (manual) and segmentation-based SSDE calculators (indoseCT and XXautocalc) were used to assess the proposed software predictions comparatively.
RESULTS: The results of this study show that the automated equation-based calculation of SSDE and the manual and segmentation-based calculation of SSDE are in good agreement for patients. The differences between the automated equation-based calculation of SSDE and the manual and segmentation-based calculation are less than 3%.
CONCLUSION: This study validated an accurate SSDE calculator that allows users to enter key input values and calculate SSDE.
IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: The automated equation-based SSDE software (PESSD) seems a promising tool for estimating individualised CT doses during CT scans.
METHODS: A customised polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) cylindrical phantom was developed for performance evaluation of Planmeca ProMax 3D Mid digital dental CBCT unit. The fabricated phantom consists of four different layers for testing specific IQ parameters such as CT number accuracy and uniformity, noise and CT number linearity. The phantom was scanned using common scanning protocols in clinical routine (90.0 kV, 8.0 mA and 13.6 s). In region-of-interest (ROI) analysis, the mean CT numbers (in Hounsfield unit, HU) and noise for water and air were determined and compared with the reference values (0 HU for water and -1000 HU for air). For linearity test, the correlation between the measured HU of different inserts with their density was studied.
RESULTS: The average CT number were -994.1 HU and -2.4 HU, for air and water, respectively and the differences were within the recommended acceptable limit. The linearity test showed a strong positive correlation (R2 = 0.9693) between the measured HU and their densities.
CONCLUSION: The fabricated IQ phantom serves as a simple and affordable testing tool for digital dental CBCT imaging.
METHODS: A ball phantom was scanned using panoramic mode of the Planmeca ProMax 3D Mid CBCT unit (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) with standard exposure settings used in clinical practice (60 kV, 2 mA, and maximum FOV). An automated calculator algorithm was developed in MATLAB platform. Two parameters associated with panoramic image distortion such as balls diameter and distance between middle and tenth balls were measured. These automated measurements were compared with manual measurement using the Planmeca Romexis and ImageJ software.
RESULTS: The findings showed smaller deviation in distance difference measurements by proposed automated calculator (ranged 3.83 mm) as compared to manual measurements (ranged 5.00 for Romexis and 5.12 mm for ImageJ software). There was a significant difference (p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A MATLAB platform was used to develop software of algorithms based on image segmentation techniques to automate the calculation of patient size and SSDE. The algorithm was used to automatically estimate the individual size and SSDE of four CT dose index phantoms and 80 CT images of pediatric patients comprising head, thorax, and abdomen scans. For validation, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) manual methods were used to determine the patient's size and SSDE for the same subjects. The accuracy of the proposed algorithm in size and SSDE calculation was evaluated for agreement with the AAPM's estimations (manual) using Bland-Altman's agreement and Pearson's correlation coefficient. The normalized error, system bias, and limits of agreement (LOA) between methods were derived.
RESULTS: The results demonstrated good agreement and accuracy between the automated and AAPM's patient size estimations with an error rate of 1.9% and 0.27% on the patient and phantoms study, respectively. A 1% percentage difference was found between the automated and manual (AAPM) SSDE estimates. A strong degree of correlation was seen with a narrow LOA between methods for clinical study (r > 0.9771) and phantom study (r > 0.9999).
CONCLUSION: The proposed automated algorithm provides an accurate estimation of patient size and SSDE with negligible error after validation.