S E Stephens1, N B Ingels1, J F Wenk2, M O Jensen1. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, United States of America. 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America.
Abstract
Background: The use of 3D imaging is becoming increasingly common, so too is the use of fiducial markers to identify/track regions of interest and assess material deformation. While many different materials have been used as fiducials, they are often used in isolation, with little comparison to one another. Objective: In the current study, we aim to directly compare different Computed Tomography (CT and μCT) fiducial materials, both metallic and nonmetallic. Methods: μCT imaging was performed on a soft-tissue structure, in this case heart valve tissue, with various markers attached. Additionally, we evaluated the same markers with DiceCT stained tissue in a fluid medium. Eight marker materials were tested in all. Results: All of the metallic markers generated significant artifacts and were found unsuitable for soft-tissue μCT imaging, whereas alumina markers were found to perform the best, with excellent contrast and consistency. Conclusions: These findings support the further use of alumina as fiducial markers for soft material and tissue studies that utilize CT and μCT imaging.
Background: The use of 3D imaging is becoming increasingly common, so too is the use of fiducial markers to identify/track regions of interest and assess material deformation. While many different materials have been used as fiducials, they are often used in isolation, with little comparison to one another. Objective: In the current study, we aim to directly compare different Computed Tomography (CT and μCT) fiducial materials, both metallic and nonmetallic. Methods: μCT imaging was performed on a soft-tissue structure, in this case heart valve tissue, with various markers attached. Additionally, we evaluated the same markers with DiceCT stained tissue in a fluid medium. Eight marker materials were tested in all. Results: All of the metallic markers generated significant artifacts and were found unsuitable for soft-tissue μCT imaging, whereas alumina markers were found to perform the best, with excellent contrast and consistency. Conclusions: These findings support the further use of alumina as fiducial markers for soft material and tissue studies that utilize CT and μCT imaging.
Authors: J B Garrison; W L Ebert; R E Jenkins; S M Yionoulis; H Malcom; G A Heyler; A A Shoukas; W L Maughan; K Sagawa Journal: Comput Biomed Res Date: 1982-02
Authors: Kathryn L Holloway; Steven E Gaede; Philip A Starr; Joshua M Rosenow; Viswanathan Ramakrishnan; Jaimie M Henderson Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Eric L Pierce; Charles H Bloodworth; Ajay Naran; Thomas F Easley; Morten O Jensen; Ajit P Yoganathan Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Daniel Habermehl; Katrin Henkner; Swantje Ecker; Oliver Jäkel; Jürgen Debus; Stephanie E Combs Journal: J Radiat Res Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 2.724