Kai Roman Laukamp1,2,3, David Zopfs4, Simon Lennartz4, Lenhard Pennig4, David Maintz4, Jan Borggrefe4, Nils Große Hokamp4. 1. Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. kai.laukamp@uk-koeln.de. 2. Department of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. kai.laukamp@uk-koeln.de. 3. Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. kai.laukamp@uk-koeln.de. 4. Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study compares reduction of strong metal artifacts from large dental implants/bridges using spectral detector CT-derived virtual monoenergetic images (VMI), metal artifact reduction algorithms/reconstructions (MAR), and a combination of both methods (VMIMAR) to conventional CT images (CI). METHODS: Forty-one spectral detector CT (SDCT) datasets of patients that obtained additional MAR reconstructions due to strongest artifacts from large oral implants were included. CI, VMI, MAR, and VMIMAR ranging from 70 to 200 keV (10 keV increment) were reconstructed. Objective image analyses were performed ROI-based by measurement of attenuation (HU) and standard deviation in most pronounced hypo-/hyperdense artifacts as well as artifact impaired soft tissue (mouth floor/soft palate). Extent of artifact reduction, diagnostic assessment of soft tissue, and appearance of new artifacts were rated visually by two radiologists. RESULTS: The hypo-/hyperattenuating artifacts showed an increase and decrease of HU values in MAR and VMIMAR (CI/MAR/VMIMAR-200keV: - 369.8 ± 239.6/- 37.3 ± 109.6/- 46.2 ± 71.0 HU, p < 0.001 and 274.8 ± 170.2/51.3 ± 150.8/36.6 ± 56.0, p < 0.001, respectively). Higher keV values in hyperdense artifacts allowed for additional artifact reduction; however, this trend was not significant. Artifacts in soft tissue were reduced significantly by MAR and VMIMAR. Visually, high-keV VMI, MAR, and VMIMAR reduced artifacts and improved diagnostic assessment of soft tissue. Overcorrection/new artifacts were reported that mostly did not hamper diagnostic assessment. Overall interrater agreement was excellent (ICC = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: In the presence of strong artifacts due to large oral implants, MAR is a powerful mean for artifact reduction. For hyperdense artifacts, MAR should be supplemented by VMI ranging from 140 to 200 keV. This combination yields optimal artifact reduction and improves the diagnostic image assessment in imaging of the head and neck. KEY POINTS: • Large oral implants can cause strong artifacts. • MAR is a powerful tool for artifact reduction considering such strong artifacts. • Hyperdense artifact reduction is supplemented by VMI of 140-200 keV from SDCT.
OBJECTIVES: This study compares reduction of strong metal artifacts from large dental implants/bridges using spectral detector CT-derived virtual monoenergetic images (VMI), metal artifact reduction algorithms/reconstructions (MAR), and a combination of both methods (VMIMAR) to conventional CT images (CI). METHODS: Forty-one spectral detector CT (SDCT) datasets of patients that obtained additional MAR reconstructions due to strongest artifacts from large oral implants were included. CI, VMI, MAR, and VMIMAR ranging from 70 to 200 keV (10 keV increment) were reconstructed. Objective image analyses were performed ROI-based by measurement of attenuation (HU) and standard deviation in most pronounced hypo-/hyperdense artifacts as well as artifact impaired soft tissue (mouth floor/soft palate). Extent of artifact reduction, diagnostic assessment of soft tissue, and appearance of new artifacts were rated visually by two radiologists. RESULTS: The hypo-/hyperattenuating artifacts showed an increase and decrease of HU values in MAR and VMIMAR (CI/MAR/VMIMAR-200keV: - 369.8 ± 239.6/- 37.3 ± 109.6/- 46.2 ± 71.0 HU, p < 0.001 and 274.8 ± 170.2/51.3 ± 150.8/36.6 ± 56.0, p < 0.001, respectively). Higher keV values in hyperdense artifacts allowed for additional artifact reduction; however, this trend was not significant. Artifacts in soft tissue were reduced significantly by MAR and VMIMAR. Visually, high-keV VMI, MAR, and VMIMAR reduced artifacts and improved diagnostic assessment of soft tissue. Overcorrection/new artifacts were reported that mostly did not hamper diagnostic assessment. Overall interrater agreement was excellent (ICC = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: In the presence of strong artifacts due to large oral implants, MAR is a powerful mean for artifact reduction. For hyperdense artifacts, MAR should be supplemented by VMI ranging from 140 to 200 keV. This combination yields optimal artifact reduction and improves the diagnostic image assessment in imaging of the head and neck. KEY POINTS: • Large oral implants can cause strong artifacts. • MAR is a powerful tool for artifact reduction considering such strong artifacts. • Hyperdense artifact reduction is supplemented by VMI of 140-200 keV from SDCT.
Entities:
Keywords:
Artifacts; Head and neck neoplasms; Neoplasm metastasis; Tomography, X-ray computed
Authors: R Guggenberger; S Winklhofer; G Osterhoff; G A Wanner; M Fortunati; G Andreisek; H Alkadhi; P Stolzmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Thomas G Flohr; Cynthia H McCollough; Herbert Bruder; Martin Petersilka; Klaus Gruber; Christoph Süss; Michael Grasruck; Karl Stierstorfer; Bernhard Krauss; Rainer Raupach; Andrew N Primak; Axel Küttner; Stefan Achenbach; Christoph Becker; Andreas Kopp; Bernd M Ohnesorge Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-12-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alvin C Silva; Brian G Morse; Amy K Hara; Robert G Paden; Norio Hongo; William Pavlicek Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Fabian Bamberg; Alexander Dierks; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nils Große Hokamp; Brendan Eck; Florian Siedek; Daniel Pinto Dos Santos; Jasmin A Holz; David Maintz; Stefan Haneder Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2020-05
Authors: Y Kubo; K Ito; M Sone; H Nagasawa; Y Onishi; N Umakoshi; T Hasegawa; T Akimoto; M Kusumoto Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Kai Roman Laukamp; Simon Lennartz; Vivian Ho; Nils Große Hokamp; David Zopfs; Amit Gupta; Frank Philipp Graner; Jan Borggrefe; Robert Gilkeson; Nikhil Ramaiya Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Amit Gupta; Verena Carola Obmann; Michelle Jordan; Simon Lennartz; Markus Michael Obmann; Nils Große Hokamp; David Zopfs; Lenhard Pennig; Gina Fürtjes; Nikhil Ramaiya; Robert Gilkeson; Kai Roman Laukamp Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-01
Authors: Lenhard Pennig; David Zopfs; Roman Gertz; Johannes Bremm; Charlotte Zaeske; Nils Große Hokamp; Erkan Celik; Lukas Goertz; Marcel Langenbach; Thorsten Persigehl; Amit Gupta; Jan Borggrefe; Simon Lennartz; Kai Roman Laukamp Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 5.315