Victor Aquino Wanderley1,2, Andre Ferreira Leite3,4, Karla de Faria Vasconcelos3, Ruben Pauwels5,6, Francisca Müller-García3, Kathrin Becker7, Matheus L Oliveira8, Reinhilde Jacobs3,9. 1. OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. victoraquinow@gmail.com. 2. Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. victoraquinow@gmail.com. 3. OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil. 5. Aarhus Institute of Advanced Studies, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 6. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 7. Department of Orthodontics, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. 8. Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. 9. Department of Dental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The overall objective of this study was to assess how metal artefacts impact image quality of 13 CBCT devices. As a secondary objective, the influence of scanning protocols and field of view on CBCT image quality with and without metal artefacts was also assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CBCT images were acquired of a dry human skull phantom considering three clinical simulated conditions: one without metal and two with metallic materials (metallic pin and implant). An industrial micro-CT was used as a reference to register the CBCT images. Afterwards, four observers evaluated 306 representative image slices from 13 devices, ranking them from best to worst. Furthermore, within each device, medium FOV and small FOV standard images were compared. General linear mixed models were used to assess subjective perception of examiners on overall image quality in the absence and presence of metal-related artefacts (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Image quality perception significantly differed amongst CBCT devices (p < 0.05). Some devices performed significantly better, independently of scanning protocol and clinical condition. In the presence of metal artefacts, medium FOV standard scanning protocols scored significantly better, while in the absence of metal, small FOV standard yielded the highest performance. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective image quality differs significantly amongst CBCT devices and scanning protocols. Metal-related artefacts may highly impact image quality, with a significant device-dependent variability and only few scanners being more robust against metal artefacts. Often, metal artefact expression may be somewhat reduced by proper protocol selection. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Metallic objects may severely impact image quality in several CBCT devices.
OBJECTIVES: The overall objective of this study was to assess how metal artefacts impact image quality of 13 CBCT devices. As a secondary objective, the influence of scanning protocols and field of view on CBCT image quality with and without metal artefacts was also assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CBCT images were acquired of a dry human skull phantom considering three clinical simulated conditions: one without metal and two with metallic materials (metallic pin and implant). An industrial micro-CT was used as a reference to register the CBCT images. Afterwards, four observers evaluated 306 representative image slices from 13 devices, ranking them from best to worst. Furthermore, within each device, medium FOV and small FOV standard images were compared. General linear mixed models were used to assess subjective perception of examiners on overall image quality in the absence and presence of metal-related artefacts (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Image quality perception significantly differed amongst CBCT devices (p < 0.05). Some devices performed significantly better, independently of scanning protocol and clinical condition. In the presence of metal artefacts, medium FOV standard scanning protocols scored significantly better, while in the absence of metal, small FOV standard yielded the highest performance. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective image quality differs significantly amongst CBCT devices and scanning protocols. Metal-related artefacts may highly impact image quality, with a significant device-dependent variability and only few scanners being more robust against metal artefacts. Often, metal artefact expression may be somewhat reduced by proper protocol selection. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Metallic objects may severely impact image quality in several CBCT devices.
Authors: K F Vasconcelos; L F P Nicolielo; M C Nascimento; F Haiter-Neto; F N Bóscolo; J Van Dessel; M EzEldeen; I Lambrichts; R Jacobs Journal: Int Endod J Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 5.264
Authors: Victor Aquino Wanderley; Karla de Faria Vasconcelos; André Ferreira Leite; Matheus L Oliveira; Reinhilde Jacobs Journal: Semin Musculoskelet Radiol Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 1.777
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