Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Quantitative assessment of image artifacts from root filling materials on CBCT scans made using several exposure parameters

  • Received : 2017.02.11
  • Accepted : 2017.06.07
  • Published : 2017.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To quantify artifacts from different root filling materials in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images acquired using different exposure parameters. Materials and Methods: Fifteen single-rooted teeth were scanned using 8 different exposure protocols with 3 different filling materials and once without filling material as a control group. Artifact quantification was performed by a trained observer who made measurements in the central axial slice of all acquired images in a fixed region of interest using ImageJ. Hyperdense artifacts, hypodense artifacts, and the remaining tooth area were identified, and the percentages of hyperdense and hypodense artifacts, remaining tooth area, and tooth area affected by the artifacts were calculated. Artifacts were analyzed qualitatively by 2 observers using the following scores: absence (0), moderate presence (1), and high presence (2) for hypodense halos, hypodense lines, and hyperdense lines. Two-way ANOVA and the post-hoc Tukey test were used for quantitative and qualitative artifact analysis. The Dunnet test was also used for qualitative analysis. The significance level was set at P<.05. Results: There were no significant interactions among the exposure parameters in the quantitative or qualitative analysis. Significant differences were observed among the studied filling materials in all quantitative analyses. In the qualitative analyses, all materials differed from the control group in terms of hypodense and hyperdense lines (P<.05). Fiberglass posts did not differ statistically from the control group in terms of hypodense halos(P>.05). Conclusion: Different exposure parameters did not affect the objective or subjective observations of artifacts in CBCT images; however, the filling materials used in endodontic restorations did affect both types of assessments.

Keywords

References

  1. Pauwels R, Stamatakis H, Bosmans H, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R, Horner K, et al. Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24 Suppl A100: 94-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02382.x
  2. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillifac Radiol 2011; 40: 265-73. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/30642039
  3. Benic GI, Sancho-Puchades M, Jung RE, Deyhle H, Hammerle CH. In vitro assessment of artifacts induced by titanium dental implants in cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 378-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12048
  4. Hassan B, Couto Souza P, Jacobs R, de Azambuja Berti S, van der Stelt P. Influence of scanning and reconstruction parameters on quality of three-dimensional surface models of the dental arches from cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig 2010; 14: 303-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0291-3
  5. Hunter AK, McDavid WD. Characterization and correction of cupping effect artefacts in cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 217-23. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/19015946
  6. Nardi C, Borri C, Regini F, Calistri L, Castellani A, Lorini C, et al. Metal and motion artifacts by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dental and maxillofacial study. Radiol Med 2015; 120: 618-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-015-0496-2
  7. Vasconcelos KF, Nicolielo LF, Nascimento MC, Haiter-Neto F, Boscolo FN, Van Dessel J, et al. Artefact expression associated with several cone-beam computed tomographic machines when imaging root filled teeth. Int Endod J 2015; 48: 994-1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12395
  8. Boas FE, Fleischmann D. Evaluation of two iterative techniques for reducing metal artifacts in computed tomography. Radiology 2011; 259: 894-902. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101782
  9. Bezerra IS, Neves FS, Vasconcelos TV, Ambrosano GM, Freitas DQ. Influence of the artifact reduction algorithm of Picasso Trio CBCT system on the diagnosis of vertical root fractures in teeth with metal posts. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 14: 20140428.
  10. Chindasombatjaroen J, Kakimoto N, Murakami S, Maeda Y, Furukawa S. Quantitative analysis of metallic artefacts caused by dental metals: comparison of cone-beam and multi-detector row CT scanners. Oral Radiol 2011; 27: 114-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-011-0071-z
  11. Bamba J, Araki K, Endo A, Okano T. Image quality assessment of three cone beam CT machines using the SEDENTEXCT CT phantom. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20120445. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120445
  12. Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R. Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011: 22: 873-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02076.x
  13. Bryant JA, Drage NA, Richmond S. Study of the scan uniformity from an i-CAT cone beam computed tomography dental imaging system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008: 37: 365-74. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/13227258
  14. Pinto MGO, Rabelo KA, Sousa Melo SL, Campos PSF, Oliveira LSAF, Bento PM, et al. Influence of exposure parameters on the detection of simulated root fractures in the presence of various intracanal materials. Int Endod J 2017: 50: 586-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12655
  15. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am 2008; 52: 707-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005
  16. Nagarajappa AK, Dwivedi N, Tiwari R. Artifacts: the downturn of CBCT image. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2015; 5: 440-5. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.170523
  17. Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics 2004; 24: 1679-91. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.246045065
  18. Bechara B, McMahan CA, Noujeim M, Faddoul T, Moore WS, Teixeira FB, et al. Comparison of cone beam CT scans with enhanced photostimulated phosphor plate images in the detection of root fracture of endodontically treated teeth. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20120404 https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120404
  19. Esmaeili F, Johari M, Haddadi P. Beam hardening artifacts by dental implants: comparison of cone-beam and 64-slice computed tomography scanners. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2013; 10: 376-81.
  20. Kamburoglu K, Onder B, Murat S, Avsever H, Yuksel S, Paksoy CS. Radiographic detection of artificially created horizontal root fracture using different cone beam CT units with small fields of view. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013: 42: 20120261 https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120261
  21. de Rezende Barbosa GL, Sousa Melo SL, Alencar PN, Nascimento MC, Almeida SM. Performance of an artefact reduction algorithm in the diagnosis of in vitro vertical root fracture in four different root filling conditions on CBCT images. Int Endod J 2016; 49: 500-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12477
  22. Helvacioglu-Yigit D, Demirturk Kocasarac H, Bechara B, Noujeim M. Evaluation and reduction of artifacts generated by 4 different root-end filling materials by using multiple cone-beam computed tomography imaging settings. J Endod 2016; 42: 307-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.11.002
  23. de-Azevedo-Vaz SL, Peyneau PD, Ramirez-Sotelo LR, Vasconcelos Kde F, Campos PS, Haiter-Neto F. Efficacy of a cone beam computed tomography metal artifact reduction algorithm for the detection of peri-implant fenestrations and dehiscences. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016; 121: 550-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2016.01.013
  24. Draenert FG, Coppenrath E, Herzog P, Muller S, Mueller-Lisse UG. Beam hardening artefacts occur in dental implant scans with the NewTom cone beam CT but not with the dental 4-row multidetector CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36: 198-203. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/32579161
  25. Schulze RK, Berndt D, d'Hoedt B. On cone-beam computed tomography artifacts induced by titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21: 100-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01817.x
  26. Jaju PP, Jain M, Singh A, Gupta A. Artefacts in cone beam CT. Open J Stomatol 2013; 3: 292-7 https://doi.org/10.4236/ojst.2013.35049
  27. van der Schaaf I, van Leeuwen M, Vlassenbroek A, Velthuis B. Minimizing clip artifacts in multi CT angiography of clipped patients. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27: 60-6.
  28. Araki K, Okano T. The effect of surrounding conditions on pixel value of cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 862-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02373.x
  29. Bechara BB, Moore WS, McMahan CA, Noujeim M. Metal artefact reduction with cone beam CT: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 248-53. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/80899839
  30. Bechara B, McMahan CA, Geha H, Noujeim M. Evaluation of a cone beam CT artefact reduction algorithm. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 422-8 https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/43691321
  31. Ferreira LM, Visconti MA, Nascimento HA, Dallemolle RR, Ambrosano GM, Freitas DQ. Influence of CBCT enhancement filters on diagnosis of vertical root fractures: a simulation study in endodontically treated teeth with and without intracanal posts. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140352 https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140352

Cited by

  1. The detection of vertical root fractures in post-core restored teeth with cone-beam CT: in vivo and ex vivo vol.48, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180327
  2. Dosimetric evaluation of phantoms including metal objects with high atomic number for use in intensity modulated radiation therapy vol.59, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-020-00851-0
  3. Quantitative analysis of metal artefacts of dental implant in CBCT image by correlation analysis to micro-CT: A microstructural study vol.50, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20200365
  4. Influence of size of field of view (FOV), position within the FOV, and scanning mode on the detection of root fracture and observer’s perception of artifacts in CBCT images vol.50, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20200563