Flat Panel Angiography in the Cross-Sectional Imaging of the Temporal Bone: Assessment of Image Quality and Radiation Dose Compared with a 64-Section Multisection CT Scanner

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Fatterpekar GM,
   3. Doshi AH,
   4. Dugar M, et al

   . Role of 3D CT in the evaluation of the temporal bone. Radiographics 2006;26(suppl 1):S117–32 doi:10.1148/rg.26si065502 pmid:17050510

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Majdani O,
   3. Thews K,
   4. Bartling S, et al

   . Temporal bone imaging: comparison of flat panel volume CT and multisection CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1419–24 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1560 pmid:19369606

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   2. Gupta R,
   3. Bartling SH,
   4. Basu SK, et al

   . Experimental flat-panel high-spatial-resolution volume CT of the temporal bone. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:1417–24 pmid:15466345

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   2. Gupta R,
   3. Cheung AC,
   4. Bartling SH, et al

   . Flat-panel volume CT: fundamental principles, technology, and applications. Radiographics 2008;28:2009–22 doi:10.1148/rg.287085004 pmid:19001655

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Dalchow CA,
   3. Weber Al,
   4. Yanagihara N, et al

   . Digital volume tomography: radiologic examinations of the temporal bone. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:416–23 doi:10.2214/AJR.04.1353 pmid:16423947

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Dalchow CV,
   3. Weber AL,
   4. Bien S, et al

   . Value of digital volume tomography in patients with conductive hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006;263:93–99 doi:10.1007/s00405-005-0995-1 pmid:16163510

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Pearl MS,
   3. Roy A,
   4. Limb CJ

   . High-resolution secondary reconstructions with the use of flat panel CT in the clinical assessment of patients with cochlear implants. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:1202–08 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3814 pmid:24371026

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Zaoui K,
   3. Kromeier J,
   4. Neudert M, et al

   . Flat panel CT following stapes prosthesis insertion: an experimental and clinical study. Eur Radiol 2012;22:837–44 doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2317-x pmid:22160168

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Zaoui K,
   3. Kromeier J,
   4. Neudert M, et al

   . Clinical investigation of flat panel CT following middle ear reconstruction: a study of 107 patients. Eur Radiol 2014;24:587–94 doi:10.1007/s00330-013-3068-7 pmid:24275805

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Ludlow JB,
    3. Ivanovic M

    . Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:106–14 doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.018 pmid:18504152

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Kim DS,
    3. Rashsuren O,
    4. Kim EK

    . Conversion coefficients for the estimation of effective dose in cone-beam CT. Imaging Sci Dent 2014;44:21–29 doi:10.5624/isd.2014.44.1.21 pmid:24701455

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection: ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007;37:1–332 doi:10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003 pmid:18082557

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Peltonen LI,
    3. Aarnisalo AA,
    4. Kortesniemi MK, et al

    . Limited cone-beam computed tomography imaging of the middle ear: a comparison with multislice helical computed tomography. Acta Radiol 2007;48:207–12 doi:10.1080/02841850601080465 pmid:17354143

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Brooks RA,
    3. Di Chiro G

    . Beam hardening in x-ray reconstructive tomography. Phys Med Biol 1976;21:390–98 doi:10.1088/0031-9155/21/3/004 pmid:778862

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Schlicht FA,
    3. Kunze H

    . Beam hardening correction for flat-panel computed tomography devices. In: Proceedings of the International Meeting on Fully-Dimensional Image Reconstruction in Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Newport, Rhode Island. June 1–4, 2015
16. 16.↵
    2. Cohen M,
    3. Kemper J,
    4. Mobes O, et al

    . Radiation dose in dental radiology. Eur Rad 2002;12:634–37 doi:10.1007/s003300100928 pmid:11870479

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Li G

    . Patient radiation dose and protection from cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent 2013;43:63–69 doi:10.5624/isd.2013.43.2.63 pmid:23807928

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Loubele M,
    3. Bogaerts R,
    4. Van Dijck E, et al

    . Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 2009;71:461–68 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.06.002 pmid:18639404

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Veldhoen S,
    3. Schollchen M,
    4. Hanken H, 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 scans. Eur Rad 2017;27:790–800 doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4387-2 pmid:27169574

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Kaira MK,
    3. Maher MM,
    4. Toth TL, et al

    . Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619–28 doi:10.1148/radiol.2303021726 pmid:14739312

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science