Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

Head motion during cone-beam computed tomography: Analysis of frequency and influence on image quality

  • Moratin, Julius (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg) ;
  • Berger, Moritz (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg) ;
  • Ruckschloss, Thomas (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg) ;
  • Metzger, Karl (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg) ;
  • Berger, Hannah (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg) ;
  • Gottsauner, Maximilian (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Regensburg) ;
  • Engel, Michael (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg) ;
  • Hoffmann, Jurgen (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg) ;
  • Freudlsperger, Christian (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg) ;
  • Ristow, Oliver (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg)
  • Received : 2020.04.01
  • Accepted : 2020.06.25
  • Published : 2020.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Image artifacts caused by patient motion cause problems in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) because they lead to distortion of the 3-dimensional reconstruction. This prospective study was performed to quantify patient movement during CBCT acquisition and its influence on image quality. Materials and Methods: In total, 412 patients receiving CBCT imaging were equipped with a wireless head sensor system that detected inertial, gyroscopic, and magnetometric movements with 6 dimensions of freedom. The type and amplitude of movements during CBCT acquisition were evaluated and image quality was rated in 7 different anatomical regions of interest. For continuous variables, significance was calculated using the Student t-test. A linear regression model was applied to identify associations of the type and extent of motion with image quality scores. Kappa statistics were used to assess intra- and inter-rater agreement. Chi-square testing was used to analyze the impact of age and sex on head movement. Results: All CBCT images were acquired in a 10-month period. In 24% of the investigations, movement was recorded (acceleration: >0.10 [m/s2]; angular velocity: >0.018 [°/s]). In all examined regions of interest, head motion during CBCT acquisition resulted in significant impairment of image quality (P<0.001). Movement in the horizontal and vertical axes was most relevant for image quality (R2>0.7). Conclusion: Relevant head motions during CBCT imaging were frequently detected, leading to image quality loss and potentially impairing diagnosis and therapy planning. The presented data illustrate the need for digital correction algorithms and hardware to minimize motion artefacts in CBCT imaging.

Keywords

References

  1. Gray CF. Practice-based cone-beam computed tomography: a review. Prim Dent Care 2010; 17: 161-7. https://doi.org/10.1308/135576110792936113
  2. Horner K, Jacobs R, Schulze R. Dental CBCT equipment and performance issues. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2013; 153: 212-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncs289
  3. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72: 75-80.
  4. Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 1: physical principles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30: 1088-95. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1653
  5. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 267-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028
  6. Scarfe WC, Li Z, Aboelmaaty W, Scott SA, Farman AG. Maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: essence, elements and steps to interpretation. Aust Dent J 2012; 57 Suppl 1: 46-60.
  7. Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 2: clinical applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30: 1285-92. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1654
  8. Spin-Neto R, Wenzel A. Patient movement and motion artefacts in cone beam computed tomography of the dentomaxillofacial region: a systematic literature review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016; 121: 425-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2015.11.019
  9. Santaella GM, Wenzel A, Haiter-Neto F, Rosalen PL, Spin-Neto R. Impact of movement and motion-artefact correction on image quality and interpretability in CBCT units with aligned and lateral-offset detectors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2020; 49: 20190240. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20190240
  10. Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics 2004; 24: 1679-91. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.246045065
  11. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 265-73. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/30642039
  12. Lee KM, Song JM, Cho JH, Hwang HS. Influence of head motion on the accuracy of 3D reconstruction with cone-beam CT: landmark identification errors in maxillofacial surface model. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0153210. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153210
  13. Spin-Neto R, Costa C, Salgado DM, Zambrana NR, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Patient movement characteristics and the impact on CBCT image quality and interpretability. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018; 47: 20170216. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20170216
  14. Koong B. Cone beam imaging: is this the ultimate imaging modality? Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21: 1201-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01996.x
  15. Nervina JM. Cone beam computed tomography use in orthodontics. Aust Dent J 2012; 57 Suppl 1: 95-102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01662.x
  16. Ahmad M, Jenny J, Downie M. Application of cone beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Aust Dent J 2012; 57 Suppl 1: 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01661.x
  17. Bontempi M, Bettuzzi M, Casali F, Pasini A, Rossi A, Ariu M. Relevance of head motion in dental cone-beam CT scanner images depending on patient positioning. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2008; 3: 249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-008-0157-1
  18. Spin-Neto R, Mudrak J, Matzen LH, Christensen J, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Cone beam CT image artefacts related to head motion simulated by a robot skull: visual characteristics and impact on image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 32310645. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/32310645
  19. Hanzelka T, Foltan R, Horka E, Sedy J. Reduction of the negative influence of patient motion on quality of CBCT scan. Med Hypotheses 2010; 75: 610-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2010.07.046
  20. Bhowmik UK, Adhami RR. A head motion measurement system suitable for 3D cone-beam tomography using markers. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2012; 2012: 5975-8.
  21. Hanzelka T, Dusek J, Ocasek F, Kucera J, Sedy J, Benes J, et al. Movement of the patient and the cone beam computed tomography scanner: objectives and possible solutions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013; 116: 769-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2013.08.010
  22. Donaldson K, O'Connor S, Heath N. Dental cone beam CT image quality possibly reduced by patient movement. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 91866873. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/91866873
  23. Spin-Neto R, Matzen LH, Schropp L, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Factors affecting patient movement and re-exposure in cone beam computed tomography examination. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015; 119: 572-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2015.01.011
  24. Spin-Neto R, Matzen LH, Schropp L, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Movement characteristics in young patients and the impact on CBCT image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016; 45: 20150426. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150426
  25. Spin-Neto R, Matzen LH, Schropp L, Sorensen TS, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Accuracy of video observation and a three-dimensional head tracking system for detecting and quantifying robot-simulated head movements in cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017; 123: 721-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2017.02.010
  26. Spin-Neto R, Matzen LH, Schropp LW, Sorensen TS, Wenzel A. An ex vivo study of automated motion artefact correction and the impact on cone beam CT image quality and interpretability. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018; 47: 20180013.
  27. Schulze RK, Michel M, Schwanecke U. Automated detection of patient movement during a CBCT scan based on the projection data. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015; 119: 468-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2014.12.008
  28. Spin-Neto R, Matzen LH, Schropp L, Liedke GS, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Radiographic observers' ability to recognize patient movement during cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43: 20130449. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130449
  29. Nardi C, Taliani GG, Castellani A, De Falco L, Selvi V, Calistri L. Repetition of examination due to motion artifacts in horizontal cone beam CT: comparison among three different kinds of head support. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2017; 7: 208-13.
  30. Fassi A, Schaerer J, Riboldi M, Sarrut D, Baroni G. An image-based method to synchronize cone-beam CT and optical surface tracking. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2015; 16: 5152.
  31. Nardi C, Borri C, Regini F, Calistri L, Castellani A, Lorini C, et al. Metal and motion artifacts by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dental and maxillofacial study. Radiol Med 2015; 120: 618-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-015-0496-2
  32. Gaeta-Araujo H, Nascimento EH, Fontenele RC, Mancini AX, Freitas DQ, Oliveira-Santos C. Magnitude of beam-hardening artifacts produced by gutta-percha and metal posts on conebeam computed tomography with varying tube current. Imaging Sci Dent 2020; 50: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2020.50.1.1
  33. Freitas DQ, Fontenele RC, Nascimento EH, Vasconcelos TV, Noujeim M. Influence of acquisition parameters on the magnitude of cone beam computed tomography artifacts. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018; 47: 20180151. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180151
  34. Fontenele RC, Nascimento EHL, Santaella GM, Freitas DQ. Does the metal artifact reduction algorithm activation mode influence the magnitude of artifacts in CBCT images? Imaging Sci Dent 2020; 50: 23-30. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2020.50.1.23

Cited by

  1. Detection of mandibular canal in human dry mandibles with cone beam computed tomography using 270° and 360° protocols under continuous and pulse modes - A comparative study vol.33, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4103/jiaomr.jiaomr_217_21
  2. A novel three‐dimensional morphological analysis of idiopathic condylar resorption following stabilisation splint treatment vol.48, pp.5, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.13154