W Wuest1, M S May2, M Brand2, N Bayerl2, A Krauss3, M Uder2, M Lell2. 1. From the Radiological Institute (W.W., M.S.M., M.B., N.B., M.U., M.L.), Friedrich-Alexander-University-Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany wolfgang.wuest@uk-erlangen.de. 2. From the Radiological Institute (W.W., M.S.M., M.B., N.B., M.U., M.L.), Friedrich-Alexander-University-Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Medical Imaging (A.K.), Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Metal artifacts from dental fillings and other devices degrade image quality and may compromise the detection and evaluation of lesions in the oral cavity and oropharynx by CT. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of iterative metal artifact reduction on CT of the oral cavity and oropharynx. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 50 consecutive patients with metal artifacts from dental hardware were reconstructed with standard filtered back-projection, linear interpolation metal artifact reduction (LIMAR), and iterative metal artifact reduction. The image quality of sections that contained metal was analyzed for the severity of artifacts and diagnostic value. RESULTS: A total of 455 sections (mean ± standard deviation, 9.1 ± 4.1 sections per patient) contained metal and were evaluated with each reconstruction method. Sections without metal were not affected by the algorithms and demonstrated image quality identical to each other. Of these sections, 38% were considered nondiagnostic with filtered back-projection, 31% with LIMAR, and only 7% with iterative metal artifact reduction. Thirty-three percent of the sections had poor image quality with filtered back-projection, 46% with LIMAR, and 10% with iterative metal artifact reduction. Thirteen percent of the sections with filtered back-projection, 17% with LIMAR, and 22% with iterative metal artifact reduction were of moderate image quality, 16% of the sections with filtered back-projection, 5% with LIMAR, and 30% with iterative metal artifact reduction were of good image quality, and 1% of the sections with LIMAR and 31% with iterative metal artifact reduction were of excellent image quality. CONCLUSIONS: Iterative metal artifact reduction yields the highest image quality in comparison with filtered back-projection and linear interpolation metal artifact reduction in patients with metal hardware in the head and neck area.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Metal artifacts from dental fillings and other devices degrade image quality and may compromise the detection and evaluation of lesions in the oral cavity and oropharynx by CT. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of iterative metal artifact reduction on CT of the oral cavity and oropharynx. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 50 consecutive patients with metal artifacts from dental hardware were reconstructed with standard filtered back-projection, linear interpolation metal artifact reduction (LIMAR), and iterative metal artifact reduction. The image quality of sections that contained metal was analyzed for the severity of artifacts and diagnostic value. RESULTS: A total of 455 sections (mean ± standard deviation, 9.1 ± 4.1 sections per patient) contained metal and were evaluated with each reconstruction method. Sections without metal were not affected by the algorithms and demonstrated image quality identical to each other. Of these sections, 38% were considered nondiagnostic with filtered back-projection, 31% with LIMAR, and only 7% with iterative metal artifact reduction. Thirty-three percent of the sections had poor image quality with filtered back-projection, 46% with LIMAR, and 10% with iterative metal artifact reduction. Thirteen percent of the sections with filtered back-projection, 17% with LIMAR, and 22% with iterative metal artifact reduction were of moderate image quality, 16% of the sections with filtered back-projection, 5% with LIMAR, and 30% with iterative metal artifact reduction were of good image quality, and 1% of the sections with LIMAR and 31% with iterative metal artifact reduction were of excellent image quality. CONCLUSIONS: Iterative metal artifact reduction yields the highest image quality in comparison with filtered back-projection and linear interpolation metal artifact reduction in patients with metal hardware in the head and neck area.
Authors: Changsheng Zhou; Yan E Zhao; Song Luo; Hongyuan Shi; Lin Li; Ling Zheng; Long Jiang Zhang; Guangming Lu Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Patrick T Liu; William P Pavlicek; Mary B Peter; Mark J Spangehl; Catherine C Roberts; Robert G Paden Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2009-01-14 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Aikaterini Fitsiori; Steve Philippe Martin; Alix Juillet De Saint Lager; Joanna Gariani; Karl-Olof Lovblad; Xavier Montet; Maria Isabel Vargas Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Robert Forbrig; Lucas L Geyer; Robert Stahl; Jun Thorsteinsdottir; Christian Schichor; Friedrich-Wilhelm Kreth; Maximilian Patzig; Moriz Herzberg; Thomas Liebig; Franziska Dorn; Christoph G Trumm Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Joel Aissa; Johannes Boos; Lino Morris Sawicki; Niklas Heinzler; Karl Krzymyk; Martin Sedlmair; Patric Kröpil; Gerald Antoch; Christoph Thomas Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Matthias Stefan May; Marco Wiesmueller; Rafael Heiss; Michael Brand; Joscha Bruegel; Michael Uder; Wolfgang Wuest Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Felix E Diehn; Gregory J Michalak; David R DeLone; Amy L Kotsenas; E Paul Lindell; Norbert G Campeau; Ahmed F Halaweish; Cynthia H McCollough; Joel G Fletcher Journal: Acta Radiol Open Date: 2017-11-26