Effect of exposure parameters of cone beam computed tomography on metal artifact reduction around the dental implants in various bone densities

被引:27
作者
Shokri, Abbas [1 ]
Jamalpour, Mohammad Reza [2 ]
Khavid, Atefeh [3 ]
Mohseni, Zeinab [1 ]
Sadeghi, Masoud [4 ]
机构
[1] Hamadan Univ Med Sci, Sch Dent, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Radiol, Dent Implant Res Ctr, Hamadan, Iran
[2] Hamadan Univ Med Sci, Sch Dent, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Dent Implant Res Ctr, Hamadan, Iran
[3] Kermanshah Univ Med Sci, Oral & Maxillofacial Radiol Dept, Fac Dent, Kermanshah, Iran
[4] Kermanshah Univ Med Sci, Med Biol Res Ctr, Kermanshah, Iran
关键词
Conebeam computed tomography; Dental implants; Metal artifacts; Bone density; CT;
D O I
10.1186/s12880-019-0334-4
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
BackgroundThis study aimed to assess the effect of exposure parameters such as milliampere (mA) and field of view (FOV) of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) on a metal artifact of dental implants placed in different bone densities.MethodsA total of 27 bone blocks with different densities (nine were type 1, nine were types 2 and 3, and nine were type 4) were used in this in vitro, experimental study. These blocks were placed in mandibular wax models. The blocks were scanned after drilling (hole preparation) and after implant placement using Cranex3D imaging system with a 4x6 cm(2)and 6x8 cm(2) FOV and 4 and 10mA. Gray value of the bone blocks was recorded before and after placement of implants.ResultsIn general, irrespective of bone density, the amount of artifacts was lower in small FOV compared to large FOV (P<0.05). Change of mA had no effect on metal artifacts (P>0.05). Artifacts in type 4 bone were greater than in other bone types (P<0.05). Difference between type 1 and types 2 and 3 was not significant (P>0.05).ConclusionAccording to the results of this study, Peri-implant artifacts were seen in all bone types; the amount of artifacts in type 4 bone was higher than that in other types. Size of FOV and bone density affect the metal artifacts around dental implants; so that a smaller FOV can be used to decrease metal artifacts.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   Metal artefact reduction with cone beam CT: an in vitro study [J].
Bechara, B. B. ;
Moore, W. S. ;
McMahan, C. A. ;
Noujeim, M. .
DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, 2012, 41 (03) :248-253
[2]   In vitro assessment of artifacts induced by titanium dental implants in cone beam computed tomography [J].
Benic, Goran I. ;
Sancho-Puchades, Manuel ;
Jung, Ronald E. ;
Deyhle, Hans ;
Haemmerle, Christoph H. F. .
CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2013, 24 (04) :378-383
[3]   Are metal artefact reduction algorithms effective to correct cone beam CT artefacts arising from the exomass? [J].
Candemil, Amanda Pelegrin ;
Salmon, Benjamin ;
Freitas, Deborah Queiroz ;
Bovi Ambrosano, Glaucia Maria ;
Haiter-Neto, Francisco ;
Oliveira, Matheus Lima .
DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, 2019, 48 (03)
[4]   Discriminative feature representation: an effective postprocessing solution to low dose CT imaging [J].
Chen, Yang ;
Liu, Jin ;
Hu, Yining ;
Yang, Jian ;
Shi, Luyao ;
Shu, Huazhong ;
Gui, Zhiguo ;
Coatrieux, Gouenou ;
Luo, Limin .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2017, 62 (06) :2103-2131
[5]   Quantitative analysis of metallic artifacts caused by dental metals: comparison of cone-beam and multi-detector row CT scanners [J].
Chindasombatjaroen, Jira ;
Kakimoto, Naoya ;
Murakami, Shumei ;
Maeda, Yoshinobu ;
Furukawa, Souhei .
ORAL RADIOLOGY, 2011, 27 (02) :114-120
[6]  
Esmaeili Farzad, 2013, Dent Res J (Isfahan), V10, P376
[7]  
Esmaeili Farzad, 2012, J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects, V6, P49
[8]  
FIALA TGS, 1993, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V92, P1227
[9]   Radiographic evaluation of bone density around immediately loaded implants [J].
Hasan, Istabrak ;
Dominiak, Marzena ;
Blaszczyszyn, Artur ;
Bourauel, Christoph ;
Gedrange, Tomasz ;
Heinemann, Friedhelm .
ANNALS OF ANATOMY-ANATOMISCHER ANZEIGER, 2015, 199 :52-57
[10]   Operational principles for cone-beam computed tomography [J].
Hatcher, David C. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, 2010, 141 (10) :3S-6S