OBJECTIVES: To assess patient movement characteristics in children and young adults and the impact on CBCT image quality. METHODS: During 33 CBCT examinations, the patients (age: average, 14 years; range, 9-25 years) who had moved were identified by video observation [movement group (MG)]. The CBCT data sets were matched with those of 33 non-moving patients according to age, diagnostic task, examined region, field of view and voxel resolution [non-movement group (N-MG)]. Three observers scored the videos of MG, regarding motional state second by second (moving/non-moving), and movement characteristics: duration (in seconds), complexity (uniplanar or multiplanar) and distance (<3/≥3 ≤ 10/>10 mm). The observers blindly assessed axial sections of the 66 examinations individually, categorizing the image quality (appropriate/acceptable/inappropriate). Next, the observers blindly assessed axial sections of the matched-pairs images simultaneously, deciding which image in the pair had the highest image quality or if it was impossible to decide. The relationship between image quality and movement/movement characteristics was evaluated. RESULTS: When the 66 CBCT images were evaluated individually, no relationship between image quality and movement was found. However, based on the matched-pairs assessment, accumulated number (≤2 vs ≥3, p = 0.039), duration (≤5 s vs ≥6 s, p = 0.024) and complexity (uniplanar vs multiplanar, p = 0.046) of movements had an impact on image quality; the more severe the movement, the more often the image quality was assessed lower in the MG. CONCLUSIONS: Axial CBCT images of young patients who moved during examination did not always present lower quality than images originating from non-moving patients. Image quality was, however, significantly lower in the moving patients when movement occurred several times, had a long duration or was multiplanar.
OBJECTIVES: To assess patient movement characteristics in children and young adults and the impact on CBCT image quality. METHODS: During 33 CBCT examinations, the patients (age: average, 14 years; range, 9-25 years) who had moved were identified by video observation [movement group (MG)]. The CBCT data sets were matched with those of 33 non-moving patients according to age, diagnostic task, examined region, field of view and voxel resolution [non-movement group (N-MG)]. Three observers scored the videos of MG, regarding motional state second by second (moving/non-moving), and movement characteristics: duration (in seconds), complexity (uniplanar or multiplanar) and distance (<3/≥3 ≤ 10/>10 mm). The observers blindly assessed axial sections of the 66 examinations individually, categorizing the image quality (appropriate/acceptable/inappropriate). Next, the observers blindly assessed axial sections of the matched-pairs images simultaneously, deciding which image in the pair had the highest image quality or if it was impossible to decide. The relationship between image quality and movement/movement characteristics was evaluated. RESULTS: When the 66 CBCT images were evaluated individually, no relationship between image quality and movement was found. However, based on the matched-pairs assessment, accumulated number (≤2 vs ≥3, p = 0.039), duration (≤5 s vs ≥6 s, p = 0.024) and complexity (uniplanar vs multiplanar, p = 0.046) of movements had an impact on image quality; the more severe the movement, the more often the image quality was assessed lower in the MG. CONCLUSIONS: Axial CBCT images of young patients who moved during examination did not always present lower quality than images originating from non-moving patients. Image quality was, however, significantly lower in the moving patients when movement occurred several times, had a long duration or was multiplanar.
Entities:
Keywords:
cone beam CT; image quality; motion artefacts; patient movement
Authors: R Pauwels; C Theodorakou; A Walker; H Bosmans; R Jacobs; K Horner; R Bogaerts Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: R Schulze; U Heil; D Gross; D D Bruellmann; E Dranischnikow; U Schwanecke; E Schoemer Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Rubens Spin-Neto; Louise Hauge Matzen; Lars Schropp; Erik Gotfredsen; Ann Wenzel Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Date: 2015-02-03
Authors: R Spin-Neto; J Mudrak; L H Matzen; J Christensen; E Gotfredsen; A Wenzel Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2012-07-27 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Rubens Spin-Neto; Louise H Matzen; Lars W Schropp; Thomas S Sørensen; Ann Wenzel Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Rubens Spin-Neto; Louise H Matzen; Lars Schropp; Erik Gotfredsen; Ann Wenzel Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Julius Moratin; Moritz Berger; Thomas Rückschloss; Karl Metzger; Hannah Berger; Maximilian Gottsauner; Michael Engel; Jürgen Hoffmann; Christian Freudlsperger; Oliver Ristow Journal: Imaging Sci Dent Date: 2020-09-16
Authors: Rubens Spin-Neto; Louise Hauge Matzen; Louise Hermann; João Marcus de Carvalho E Silva Fuglsig; Ann Wenzel Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Cosimo Nardi; Gian Giacomo Taliani; Alessandro Castellani; Luisa De Falco; Valeria Selvi; Linda Calistri Journal: J Int Soc Prev Community Dent Date: 2017-07-31