Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

Assessment of the efficiency of a pre- versus post-acquisition metal artifact reduction algorithm in the presence of 3 different dental implant materials using multiple CBCT settings: An in vitro study

  • Shahmirzadi, Solaleh (Department of Diagnostic Sciences, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Texas A&M College of Dentistry) ;
  • Sharaf, Rana A. (Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center) ;
  • Saadat, Sarang (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center) ;
  • Moore, William S. (Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center) ;
  • Geha, Hassem (Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center) ;
  • Tamimi, Dania (Private Practice, Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology) ;
  • Kocasarac, Husniye Demirturk (Department of General Dental Sciences, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Marquette University School of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2020.04.25
  • Accepted : 2020.11.25
  • Published : 2021.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess artifacts generated in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) of 3 types of dental implants using 3 metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithm conditions (pre-acquisition MAR, post-acquisition MAR, and no MAR), and 2 peak kilovoltage (kVp) settings. Materials and Methods: Titanium-zirconium, titanium, and zirconium alloy implants were placed in a dry mandible. CBCT images were acquired using 84 and 90 kVp and at normal resolution for all 3 MAR conditions. The images were analyzed using ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) to calculate the intensity of artifacts for each combination of material and settings. A 3-factor analysis of variance model with up to 3-way interactions was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in the mean intensity of artifacts associated with each factor. Results: The analysis of all 3 MAR conditions showed that using no MAR resulted in substantially more severe artifacts than either of the 2 MAR algorithms for the 3 implant materials; however, there were no significant differences between pre- and post-acquisition MAR. The 90 kVp setting generated less intense artifacts on average than the 84 kVp setting. The titanium-zirconium alloy generated significantly less intense artifacts than zirconium. Titanium generated artifacts at an intermediate level relative to the other 2 implant materials, but was not statistically significantly different from either. Conclusion: This in vitro study suggests that artifacts can be minimized by using a titanium-zirconium alloy at the 90 kVp setting, with either MAR setting.

Keywords

References

  1. Kamburoglu K, Murat S, Kilic C, Yuksel S, Avsever H, Farman A, et al. Accuracy of CBCT images in the assessment of buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant defects: effect of field of view. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43: 20130332. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130332
  2. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72: 75-80.
  3. Bechara B, McMahan CA, Moore WS, Noujeim M, Geha H. Contrast-to-noise ratio with different large volumes in a conebeam computerized tomography machine: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012; 114: 658-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.08.436
  4. Sancho-Puchades M, Hammerle CH, Benic GI. In vitro assessment of artifacts induced by titanium, titanium-zirconium and zirconium dioxide implants in cone-beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26: 1222-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12438
  5. Angelopoulos C, Aghaloo T. Imaging technology in implant diagnosis. Dent Clin North Am 2011; 55: 141-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2010.08.001
  6. Bechara B, McMahan CA, Moore WS, Noujeim M, Teixeira FB, Geha H. Cone beam CT scans with and without artefact reduction in root fracture detection of endodontically treated teeth. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20120245. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120245
  7. Bechara B, 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
  8. Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Syriopoulos K, van der Stelt P. Assessment of metal artefact reduction around dental titanium implants in cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43: 20140019. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140019
  9. Robertson DD, Weiss PJ, Fishman EK, Magid D, Walker PS. Evaluation of CT techniques for reducing artifacts in the presence of metallic orthopedic implants. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1988; 12: 236-41. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-198803000-00012
  10. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. On implant surfaces: a review of current knowledge and opinions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010; 25: 63-74.
  11. Vasconcelos TV, Bechara BB, McMahan CA, Freitas DQ, Noujeim M. Evaluation of artifacts generated by zirconium implants in cone-beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017; 123: 265-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2016.10.021
  12. Hashim D, Cionca N, Courvoisier DS, Mombelli A. A systematic review of the clinical survival of zirconia implants. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20: 1403-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1853-9
  13. Kobayashi E, Matsumoto S, Doi H, Yoneyama T, Hamanaka H. Mechanical properties of the binary titanium-zirconium alloys and their potential for biomedical materials. J Biomed Mater Res 1995; 29: 943-50. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820290805
  14. Altuna P, Lucas-Taule E, Gargallo-Albiol J, Figueras-Alvarez O, Hernandez-Alfaro F, Nart J. Clinical evidence on titanium-zirconium dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 45: 842-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2016.01.004
  15. Bezerra IS, Neves FS, Vasconcelos TV, Ambrosano GM, Freitas DQ. Influence of the artefact reduction algorithm of Picasso Trio CBCT system on the diagnosis of vertical root fractures in teeth with metal posts. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140428. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140428
  16. Demirturk Kocasarac H, Helvacioglu Yigit D, Bechara B, Sinanoglu A, Noujeim M. Contrast-to-noise ratio with different settings in a CBCT machine in presence of different root-end filling materials: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016; 45: 20160012. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160012
  17. 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
  18. Kamburoglu K, Kolsuz E, Murat S, Eren H, Yuksel S, Paksoy CS. Assessment of buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant and periodontal defects using a cone beam CT system with and without the application of metal artefact reduction mode. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20130176. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130176
  19. 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
  20. Pekkan G, Pekkan K, Hatipoglu MG, Tuna SH. Comparative radiopacity of ceramics and metals with human and bovine dental tissues. J Prosthet Dent 2011; 106: 109-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60104-2
  21. Demirturk Kocasarac H, Ustaoglu G, Bayrak S, Katkar R, Geha H, Deahl ST 2nd, et al. Evaluation of artifacts generated by titanium, zirconium, and titanium-zirconium alloy dental implants on MRI, CT, and CBCT images: a phantom study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2019; 127: 535-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2019.01.074
  22. Esmaeili F, Johari M, Haddadi P, Vatankhah M. Beam hardening artifacts: comparison between two cone beam computed tomography scanners. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2012; 6: 49-53. https://doi.org/10.5681/joddd.2012.011
  23. 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
  24. Haramati N, Staron RB, Mazel-Sperling K, Freeman K, Nickoloff EL, Barax C, et al. CT scans through metal scanning technique versus hardware composition. Comput Med Imaging Graph 1994; 18: 429-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-6111(94)90080-9