Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influence of tooth position within the field of view on the intensity of cone-beam computed tomographic imaging artifacts when assessing teeth restored with various intracanal materials

  • Received : 2019.10.14
  • Accepted : 2020.03.20
  • Published : 2020.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to quantify the influence of tooth position within the field-of-view (FOV) on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging artifacts' intensity when assessing teeth restored with various intracanal materials. Materials and Methods: Seventy single-rooted teeth were divided into 7 groups (10 teeth per group): NiCr post (NC), AgPd post (AP), metal core fiberglass post (MCFG), fiberglass post (FG), anatomical fiberglass post (AFG), fiberglass post cemented with core build-up cement (FGCo), and anatomical fiberglass post cemented with core build-up cement (AFGCo). All posts were cemented using a regular dual-curing resin cement (Allcem), except FGCo and AFGCo which were cemented with a core build-up dual-curing resin cement (AllcemCore). Each tooth was scanned on a CS9000 in 5 positions within the FOV: a central position, anterior horizontal peripheral, peripheral superior, peripheral inferior, and posterior horizontal peripheral position. Hyperdense, hypodense, remaining teeth areas and ROI areas were quantitatively analyzed using ImageJ software. Results: Posterior horizontal peripheral position increased the intensity of artifacts on FGCo and AFGCo post groups (P<0.05), and specifically the hypodense artifact intensity on FG and AFG post groups (P<0.05). NC and AP groups presented greater intensity of artifacts than any other post groups(P<0.05). Conclusion: Artifact intensity increases in the presence of high atomic number materials and when the object is not centered within the FOV. The impact of positioning within the FOV on artifact was greater for fiberglass posts cemented with core build-up dual-curing cement than for metal posts and fiberglass posts cemented with regular dual-curing cement.

Keywords

References

  1. Pauwels R, Stamatakis H, Bosmans H, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R, Horner K, et al. Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24 Suppl A100: 94-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02382.x
  2. Vasconcelos KF, Nicolielo LF, Nascimento MC, Haiter-Neto F, Boscolo FN, Van Dessel J, et al. Artefact expression associated with several cone-beam computed tomographic machines when imaging root filled teeth. Int Endod J 2014; 48: 994-1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12395
  3. Pinto MG, Rabelo KA, Sousa Melo SL, Campos PS, Oliveira LS, Bento PM, et al. Influence of exposure parameters on the detection of simulated root fractures In the presence of various intracanal materials. Int Endod J 2017; 50: 586-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12655
  4. Lira de Farias Freitas AP, Cavalcanti YW, Costa FC, Peixoto LR, Maia AM, Rovaris K, et al. Assessment of artefacts produced by metal posts on CBCT images. Int Endod J 2019; 52: 223-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12999
  5. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, et al. Artifacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 265-73. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/30642039
  6. Jones D, Mannocci F, Andiappan M, Brown J, Patel S. The effect of alteration of the exposure parameters of a cone-beam computed tomographic scan on the diagnosis of simulated horizontal root fractures. J Endod 2015; 41: 520-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.11.022
  7. Oenning AC, Pauwels R, Stratis A, De Faria Vasconcelos K, Tijskens E, De Grauwe A, et al. Halve the dose while maintaining image quality in paediatric cone Beam CT. Sci Rep 2019; 9: 5521. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41949-w
  8. Mischkowski RA, Scherer P, Ritter L, Neugebauer J, Keeve E, Zoller JE. Diagnostic quality of multiplanar reformations obtained with a newly developed cone beam device for maxillofacial imaging. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/25381129
  9. Iikubo M, Nishioka T, Okura S, Kobayashi K, Sano T, Katsumata A, et al. Influence of voxel size and scan field of view on fracture-like artifacts from gutta-percha obturated endodontically treated teeth on cone-beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016; 122: 631-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2016.07.014
  10. Ganguly R, Ramesh A, Pagni S. The accuracy of linear measurements of maxillary and mandibular edentulous sites in cone-beam computed tomography images with different fields of view and voxel sizes under simulated clinical conditions. Imaging Sci Dent 2016; 46: 93-101. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2016.46.2.93
  11. Yeung AW, Jacobs R, Bornstein MM. Novel low-dose protocols using cone beam computed tomography in dental medicine: a review focusing on indications, limitations, and future possibilities. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23: 2573-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02907-y
  12. Nikneshan S, Valizadeh S, Javanmard A, Alibakhshi L. Effect of voxel size on detection of external root resorption defects using cone beam computed tomography. Iran J Radiol 2016; 13: e34985.
  13. Gillen BM, Looney SW, Gu LS, Loushine BA, Weller RN, Loushine RJ, et al. Impact of the quality of coronal restoration versus the quality of root canal fillings on success of root canal treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod 2011; 37: 895-902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.04.002
  14. Diniz de Lima E, Lira de Farias Freitas AP, Mariz Suassuna FC, Sousa Melo SL, Bento PM, Pita de Melo D. Assessment of cone-beam computed tomographic artifacts from different intracanal materials on birooted teeth. J Endod 2019; 45: 209-13.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2018.11.007
  15. Rabelo KA, Cavalcanti YW, de Oliveira Pinto MG, Sousa Melo SL, Campos PS, de Andrade Freitas Oliveira LS, et al. Quantitative assessment of image artifacts from root filling materials on CBCT scans made using exposure parameters. Imaging Sci Dent 2017; 47: 189-97. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2017.47.3.189
  16. Codari M, de Faria Vasconcelos K, Ferreira Pinheiro Nicolielo L, Haiter Neto F, Jacobs R. Quantitative evaluation of metal artifacts using different CBCT devices, high-density materials and field of views. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28: 1509-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13019
  17. Candemil AP, Salmon B, Freitas DQ, Ambrosano GM, Haiter-Neto F, Oliveira ML. Metallic materials in the exomass impair cone beam CT voxel values. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018; 47: 20180011. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180011
  18. Cebe F, Aktan AM, Ozsevik AS, Ciftci ME, Surmelioglu HD. The effects of different restorative materials on the detection of approximal caries in cone-beam computed tomography scans with and without metal artifact reduction mode. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017; 123: 392-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2016.11.008
  19. Helvacioglu-Yigit D, Demirturk Kocasarac H, Bechara B, Noujeim M. Evaluation and reduction of artifacts generated by 4 different root-end filling materials by using multiple cone-beam computed tomography imaging settings. J Endod 2016; 42: 307-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.11.002
  20. Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 Suppl: 55-77. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.4
  21. Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H, Panmekiate S. Reduction of scatter-induced image noise in cone beam computed tomography: effect of field of view size and position. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016; 121: 188-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2015.10.017
  22. Candemil AP, Salmon B, Freitas DQ, Ambrosano GM, Haiter-Neto F, Oliveira ML. Are metal artefact reduction algorithms effective to correct cone beam CT artefacts arising from the exomass? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2019; 48: 20180290. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180290
  23. Lindfors N, Lund H, Johansson H, Ekestubbe A. Influence of patient position and other inherent factors on image quality in two different cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices. Eur J Radiol Open 2017; 4: 132-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2017.10.001
  24. Fakhar HB, Mallahi M, Panjnoush M, Kashani PM. Effect of voxel size and object location in the field of view on detection of bone defects in cone beam computed tomography. J Dent (Tehran) 2016; 13: 279-86.
  25. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am 2008; 52: 707-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005
  26. Queiroz PM, Santaella GM, da Paz TD, Freitas DQ. Evaluation of metal artefact reduction tool on different positions of a metal object in the FOV. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017; 46: 20160366. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160366

Cited by

  1. Accuracy of three cone-beam CT devices and two software systems in the detection of vertical root fractures vol.50, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20200334
  2. Influence of size of field of view (FOV), position within the FOV, and scanning mode on the detection of root fracture and observer’s perception of artifacts in CBCT images vol.50, pp.6, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20200563