Literature DB >> 29537303

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

Rubens Spin-Neto1, Louise H Matzen1, Lars W Schropp1, Thomas S Sørensen2, Ann Wenzel1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of head motion artefacts and an automated artefact-correction system on cone beam CT (CBCT) image quality and interpretability for simulated diagnostic tasks.
METHODS: A partially dentate human skull was mounted on a robot simulating four types of head movement (anteroposterior translation, nodding, lateral rotation, and tremor), at three distances (0.75, 1.5, and 3 mm) based on two movement patterns (skull returning/not returning to the initial position). Two diagnostic tasks were simulated: dental implant planning and detection of a periapical lesion. Three CBCT units were used to examine the skull during the movements and no-motion (control): Cranex 3Dx (CRA), Orthophos SL 3D (ORT), and X1 without (X1wo) and with (X1wi) an automated motion artefact-correction system. For each diagnostic task, 88 examinations were performed. Three observers, blinded to unit and movement, scored image quality: presence of stripe artefacts (present/absent), overall unsharpness (present/absent), and image interpretability (interpretable/non-interpretable). κ statistics assessed interobserver agreement, and descriptive statistics summarized the findings.
RESULTS: Interobserver agreement for image interpretability was good (average κ = 0.68). Regarding dental implant planning, X1wi images were interpretable by all observers, while for the other units mainly the cases with tremor were non-interpretable. Regarding detection of a periapical lesion, besides tremor, most of the 3 mm movements based on the "not returning" pattern were also non-interpretable for CRA, ORT, and X1wo. For X1wi, two observers scored 1.5 mm tremor and one observer scored 3 mm tremor as non-interpretable.
CONCLUSIONS: The automated motion artefact-correction system significantly enhanced CBCT image quality and interpretability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29537303      PMCID: PMC6196041          DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20180013

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


  24 in total

Review 1.  Maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: essence, elements and steps to interpretation.

Authors:  William C Scarfe; Z Li; W Aboelmaaty; S A Scott; A G Farman
Journal:  Aust Dent J       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.291

2.  Correction of head movements in positron emission tomography using point source tracking system: a simulation study.

Authors:  Babak Nazarparvar; Mojtaba Shamsaei; Hossein Rajabi
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  2011-09-28       Impact factor: 2.668

3.  Cone beam CT: a current overview of devices.

Authors:  A Nemtoi; C Czink; D Haba; A Gahleitner
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.419

Review 4.  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 5.  CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable?

Authors:  R Pauwels; R Jacobs; S R Singer; M Mupparapu
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.419

6.  Validity of wax and acrylic as soft-tissue simulation materials used in in vitro radiographic studies.

Authors:  L Schropp; N S Alyass; A Wenzel; A Stavropoulos
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 2.419

7.  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

8.  Standardized method to quantify the variation in voxel value distribution in patient-simulated CBCT data sets.

Authors:  R Spin-Neto; E Gotfredsen; A Wenzel
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 2.419

9.  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

10.  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

View more
  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Quantitative assessment of variation in CBCT image technical parameters related to CBCT detector lateral-offset position.

Authors:  Gustavo Machado Santaella; Pedro Luiz Rosalen; Polyane Mazucatto Queiroz; Francisco Haiter-Neto; Ann Wenzel; Rubens Spin-Neto
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2019-09-06       Impact factor: 2.419

3.  Impact of movement and motion-artefact correction on image quality and interpretability in CBCT units with aligned and lateral-offset detectors.

Authors:  Gustavo Machado Santaella; Ann Wenzel; Francisco Haiter-Neto; Pedro Luiz Rosalen; Rubens Spin-Neto
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 2.419

4.  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

5.  Halve the dose while maintaining image quality in paediatric Cone Beam CT.

Authors:  Anne Caroline Oenning; Ruben Pauwels; Andreas Stratis; Karla De Faria Vasconcelos; Elisabeth Tijskens; Annelore De Grauwe; Reinhilde Jacobs; Benjamin Salmon
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Diagnostic performance of cone-beam computed tomography for scaphoid fractures: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ta-Wei Yang; Yen-Yue Lin; Shih-Chang Hsu; Karen Chia-Wen Chu; Chih-Wei Hsiao; Chin-Wang Hsu; Chyi-Huey Bai; Cheng-Kuang Chang; Yuan-Pin Hsu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Dental imaging using an ultra-high resolution photon-counting CT system.

Authors:  Maurice Ruetters; Sinan Sen; Holger Gehrig; Thomas Bruckner; Ti-Sun Kim; Christopher J Lux; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Sarah Heinze; Joscha Maier; Marc Kachelrieß; Stefan Sawall
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-03       Impact factor: 4.996

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.  Does the metal artifact reduction algorithm activation mode influence the magnitude of artifacts in CBCT images?

Authors:  Rocharles C Fontenele; Eduarda H L Nascimento; Gustavo M Santaella; Deborah Q Freitas
Journal:  Imaging Sci Dent       Date:  2020-03-17
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.