Literature DB >> 26915407

Movement characteristics in young patients and the impact on CBCT image quality.

Rubens Spin-Neto1, Louise H Matzen1, Lars Schropp1, Erik Gotfredsen1, Ann Wenzel1.   

Abstract

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

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26915407      PMCID: PMC4846179          DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20150426

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol        ISSN: 0250-832X            Impact factor:   2.419


  19 in total

1.  Dose distribution for dental cone beam CT and its implication for defining a dose index.

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

2.  Reduction of the negative influence of patient motion on quality of CBCT scan.

Authors:  Tomáš Hanzelka; René Foltán; Edita Horká; Jiří Sedý
Journal:  Med Hypotheses       Date:  2010-08-30       Impact factor: 1.538

3.  Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners.

Authors:  Ruben Pauwels; Jilke Beinsberger; Bruno Collaert; Chrysoula Theodorakou; Jessica Rogers; Anne Walker; Lesley Cockmartin; Hilde Bosmans; Reinhilde Jacobs; Ria Bogaerts; Keith Horner
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2010-12-31       Impact factor: 3.528

Review 4.  Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 1: physical principles.

Authors:  A C Miracle; S K Mukherji
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2009-05-13       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 5.  Artefacts in CBCT: a review.

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

Review 6.  Estimated pediatric radiation dose during CT.

Authors:  Keith J Strauss; Marilyn J Goske
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2011-08-17

7.  Factors affecting patient movement and re-exposure in cone beam computed tomography examination.

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

8.  Cone beam CT image artefacts related to head motion simulated by a robot skull: visual characteristics and impact on image quality.

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

9.  Movement of the patient and the cone beam computed tomography scanner: objectives and possible solutions.

Authors:  Tomas Hanzelka; Jaroslav Dusek; Filip Ocasek; Josef Kucera; Jiri Sedy; Jiri Benes; Gabriela Pavlikova; Rene Foltan
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol       Date:  2013-12

10.  Radiographic observers' ability to recognize patient movement during cone beam CT.

Authors:  R Spin-Neto; L H Matzen; L Schropp; G S Liedke; E Gotfredsen; A Wenzel
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 2.419

View more
  11 in total

1.  An ex vivo study of automated motion artefact correction and the impact on cone beam CT image quality and interpretability.

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

2.  Patient movement characteristics and the impact on CBCT image quality and interpretability.

Authors:  Rubens Spin-Neto; Cláudio Costa; Daniela Mra Salgado; Nataly Rm Zambrana; Erik Gotfredsen; Ann Wenzel
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2017-10-20       Impact factor: 2.419

3.  Detection of patient movement during CBCT examination using video observation compared with an accelerometer-gyroscope tracking system.

Authors:  Rubens Spin-Neto; Louise H Matzen; Lars Schropp; Erik Gotfredsen; Ann Wenzel
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2016-10-27       Impact factor: 2.419

4.  Head motion during cone-beam computed tomography: Analysis of frequency and influence on image quality.

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

5.  Image-stitching artefacts and distortion in CCD-based cephalograms and their association with sensor type and head movement: ex vivo study.

Authors:  Olesya Svystun; Ann Wenzel; Lars Schropp; Rubens Spin-Neto
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 2.419

6.  Objective assessment of the combined effect of exomass-related- and motion artefacts in cone beam CT.

Authors:  Matheus Lima Oliveira; Amanda P Candemil; Deborah Q Freitas; Francisco Haiter-Neto; Ann Wenzel; Rubens Spin-Neto
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2020-08-19       Impact factor: 2.419

7.  Effect of patient anxiety on image motion artefacts in CBCT.

Authors:  Elif Yıldızer Keriş
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 2.757

8.  Head motion and perception of discomfort by young children during simulated CBCT examinations.

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

9.  Repetition of Examination Due to Motion Artifacts in Horizontal Cone Beam CT: Comparison among Three Different Kinds of Head Support.

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

10.  Metal artifact production and reduction in CBCT with different numbers of basis images.

Authors:  Polyane Mazucatto Queiroz; Gustavo Machado Santaella; Francisco Carlos Groppo; Deborah Queiroz Freitas
Journal:  Imaging Sci Dent       Date:  2018-03-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.