Husniye Demirturk Kocasarac1, Lisa J Koenig1, Gulbahar Ustaoglu2, Matheus Lima Oliveira3, Deborah Queiroz Freitas3. 1. Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Department of General Dental Sciences, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States. 2. Department of Periodontics, Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University Faculty of Dentistry, BAIBU Golkoy Yerleskesi, Merkez/Bolu, Turkey. 3. Division of Oral Radiology, Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare artefacts in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) arising from implants of different materials located either inside the field of view (FOV) or in the exomass, and to test different image-acquisition parameters to reduce them. METHODS: CBCT scans of a human mandible prepared with either a titanium, titanium-zirconium, or zirconia implant were acquired with the Planmeca ProMax utilizing FOV sizes of 8 × 5 cm and 4 × 5 cm, which placed the implant inside the FOV (8 × 5 cm) or in the exomass (4 × 5 cm). The scanning parameters considered three conditions of metal artefact reduction (MAR), disabled, low, and high, and 2 kVp levels (80 and 90). The standard deviation (SD) of grey values of regions of interest was obtained. The effects of implant material, implant position, MAR condition, kVp level, and their interactions were evaluated by Analysis of Variance (α = 5%). RESULTS: The zirconia implant produced the highest SD values (more heterogeneous grey values, corresponding to greater artefact expression), followed by titanium-zirconium, and titanium. In general, implants in the exomass produced images with higher SD values than implants inside the FOV. MAR was effective in decreasing SD values, especially from the zirconia implant, only when the implant was inside the FOV. Images with 80 kVp had higher SD values than those with 90 kVp, regardless of the other factors (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Implants in the exomass lead to greater artefact expression than when they are inside the FOV. Special attention should be paid to scanning parameters that reduce metal-related artefacts, such as MAR activation and increasing kVp. This is especially important with a zirconia implant inside the FOV.
OBJECTIVES: To compare artefacts in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) arising from implants of different materials located either inside the field of view (FOV) or in the exomass, and to test different image-acquisition parameters to reduce them. METHODS: CBCT scans of a human mandible prepared with either a titanium, titanium-zirconium, or zirconia implant were acquired with the Planmeca ProMax utilizing FOV sizes of 8 × 5 cm and 4 × 5 cm, which placed the implant inside the FOV (8 × 5 cm) or in the exomass (4 × 5 cm). The scanning parameters considered three conditions of metal artefact reduction (MAR), disabled, low, and high, and 2 kVp levels (80 and 90). The standard deviation (SD) of grey values of regions of interest was obtained. The effects of implant material, implant position, MAR condition, kVp level, and their interactions were evaluated by Analysis of Variance (α = 5%). RESULTS: The zirconia implant produced the highest SD values (more heterogeneous grey values, corresponding to greater artefact expression), followed by titanium-zirconium, and titanium. In general, implants in the exomass produced images with higher SD values than implants inside the FOV. MAR was effective in decreasing SD values, especially from the zirconia implant, only when the implant was inside the FOV. Images with 80 kVp had higher SD values than those with 90 kVp, regardless of the other factors (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Implants in the exomass lead to greater artefact expression than when they are inside the FOV. Special attention should be paid to scanning parameters that reduce metal-related artefacts, such as MAR activation and increasing kVp. This is especially important with a zirconia implant inside the FOV.
Authors: J B Ludlow; R Timothy; C Walker; R Hunter; E Benavides; D B Samuelson; M J Scheske Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2015 Impact factor: 2.419