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.
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.
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 H Matzen; Lars Schropp; Erik Gotfredsen; Ann Wenzel Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 2.419
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: 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: 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
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
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