Karla de Faria Vasconcelos1, Marina Codari2, Polyane Mazucatto Queiroz3, Laura Ferreira Pinheiro Nicolielo4, Deborah Queiroz Freitas3, Chiarella Sforza5, Reinhilde Jacobs6, Francisco Haiter-Neto4. 1. OIC, OMFS IMPATH research group, Department of Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: karlafav13@gmial.com. 2. OIC, OMFS IMPATH research group, Department of Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. OIC, OMFS IMPATH research group, Department of Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 6. OIC, OMFS IMPATH research group, Department of Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Oral Facial Diagnostics and Surgery, Department of Dental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of 2 metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging, considering different materials, metal positions, and fields of view (FOVs). STUDY DESIGN: Nine phantoms containing cylinders of amalgam, copper-aluminum (Cu-Al) alloy, and titanium were scanned by using Picasso Trio and ProMax 3D CBCT units with small and medium FOVs. Scans were made with and without MAR algorithms. The standard deviation (SD) of voxel gray values was measured in the neighborhood of the cylinders. Differences in SD were statistically evaluated for effects of MAR and the other parameters, with a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: Significant differences between images with MAR and those without MAR for both devices (P ≤ .0001) were observed. Amalgam showed the largest artifact expression, followed by Cu-Al and titanium. After correction, differences remained only in Picasso Trio images (P = .002). Considering positions, no significant difference in the performance of the MAR algorithm was observed in either device. Considering FOVs, significant differences were observed for ProMax 3D (P = .005), with less artifact expression in the medium FOV after MAR correction. CONCLUSIONS: MAR algorithms were effective for artifact reduction despite variation in performance according to device, FOV, and material properties. The position of the metal cylinder within the FOV had no significant effect.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of 2 metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging, considering different materials, metal positions, and fields of view (FOVs). STUDY DESIGN: Nine phantoms containing cylinders of amalgam, copper-aluminum (Cu-Al) alloy, and titanium were scanned by using Picasso Trio and ProMax 3D CBCT units with small and medium FOVs. Scans were made with and without MAR algorithms. The standard deviation (SD) of voxel gray values was measured in the neighborhood of the cylinders. Differences in SD were statistically evaluated for effects of MAR and the other parameters, with a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: Significant differences between images with MAR and those without MAR for both devices (P ≤ .0001) were observed. Amalgam showed the largest artifact expression, followed by Cu-Al and titanium. After correction, differences remained only in Picasso Trio images (P = .002). Considering positions, no significant difference in the performance of the MAR algorithm was observed in either device. Considering FOVs, significant differences were observed for ProMax 3D (P = .005), with less artifact expression in the medium FOV after MAR correction. CONCLUSIONS: MAR algorithms were effective for artifact reduction despite variation in performance according to device, FOV, and material properties. The position of the metal cylinder within the FOV had no significant effect.
Authors: Andre Luiz Ferreira Costa; Karolina A C Fardim; Jennifer M Mantoani; Ana Lucia Franco Ricardo; Maria Aparecida N Jardini; Kaan Orhan; Sérgio Lúcio Pereira de Castro Lopes Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Luciano Augusto Cano Martins; Polyane Mazucatto Queiroz; Yuri Nejaim; Karla de Faria Vasconcelos; Francisco Carlos Groppo; Francisco Haiter-Neto Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 2.419