Gustavo Machado Santaella1, Ann Wenzel2, Francisco Haiter-Neto1, Pedro Luiz Rosalen3, Rubens Spin-Neto2. 1. Department of Oral Diagnosis, Area of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 2. Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Section of Oral Radiology, Aarhus University, Denmark, Europe. 3. Department of Physiological Sciences, Area of Pharmacology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of movement and motion-artefact correction systems on CBCT image quality and interpretability of simulated diagnostic tasks for aligned and lateral-offset detectors. METHODS: A human skull simulating three diagnostic tasks (implant planning in the anterior maxilla, implant planning in the left-side-mandible and mandibular molar furcation assessment in the right-side-mandible) was mounted on a robot performing six movement types. Four CBCT units were used: Cranex 3Dx (CRA), Ortophos SL (ORT), Promax 3D Mid (PRO), and X1. Protocols were tested with aligned (CRA, ORT, PRO, and X1) and lateral-offset (CRA and PRO) detectors and two motion-artefact correction systems (PRO and X1). Movements were performed at one moment-in-time (t1), for units with an aligned detector, and three moments-in-time (t1-first-half of the acquisition, t2-second-half, t3-both) for the units with a lateral-offset detector. 98 volumes were acquired. Images were scored by three observers, blinded to the unit and presence of movement, for motion-related stripe artefacts, overall unsharpness, and interpretability. Fleiss' κ was used to assess interobserver agreement. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement was substantial for all parameters (0.66-0.68). For aligned detectors, in all diagnostic tasks a motion-artefact correction system influenced image interpretability. For lateral-offset detectors, the interpretability varied according to the unit and moment-in-time, in which the movement was performed. PRO motion-artefact correction system was less effective for the offset detector than its aligned counterpart. CONCLUSION: Motion-artefact correction systems enhanced image quality and interpretability for units with aligned detectors but were less effective for those with lateral-offset detectors.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of movement and motion-artefact correction systems on CBCT image quality and interpretability of simulated diagnostic tasks for aligned and lateral-offset detectors. METHODS: A human skull simulating three diagnostic tasks (implant planning in the anterior maxilla, implant planning in the left-side-mandible and mandibular molar furcation assessment in the right-side-mandible) was mounted on a robot performing six movement types. Four CBCT units were used: Cranex 3Dx (CRA), Ortophos SL (ORT), Promax 3D Mid (PRO), and X1. Protocols were tested with aligned (CRA, ORT, PRO, and X1) and lateral-offset (CRA and PRO) detectors and two motion-artefact correction systems (PRO and X1). Movements were performed at one moment-in-time (t1), for units with an aligned detector, and three moments-in-time (t1-first-half of the acquisition, t2-second-half, t3-both) for the units with a lateral-offset detector. 98 volumes were acquired. Images were scored by three observers, blinded to the unit and presence of movement, for motion-related stripe artefacts, overall unsharpness, and interpretability. Fleiss' κ was used to assess interobserver agreement. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement was substantial for all parameters (0.66-0.68). For aligned detectors, in all diagnostic tasks a motion-artefact correction system influenced image interpretability. For lateral-offset detectors, the interpretability varied according to the unit and moment-in-time, in which the movement was performed. PRO motion-artefact correction system was less effective for the offset detector than its aligned counterpart. CONCLUSION: Motion-artefact correction systems enhanced image quality and interpretability for units with aligned detectors but were less effective for those with lateral-offset detectors.
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: Priscila A Lopes; Gustavo M Santaella; Carlos Augusto S Lima; Karla de Faria Vasconcelos; Francisco C Groppo Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2018-07-20 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: 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