Premium
Quantitative evaluation of metal artifacts using different CBCT devices, high‐density materials and field of views
Author(s) -
Codari Marina,
Faria Vasconcelos Karla,
Ferreira Pinheiro Nicolielo Laura,
Haiter Neto Francisco,
Jacobs Reinhilde
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.13019
Subject(s) - field (mathematics) , metal , dentistry , computer science , materials science , medicine , mathematics , metallurgy , pure mathematics
Objective To objectively compare the influence of different cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices, high‐density materials and field of views ( FOV s) on metal artifact expression. Material and methods For this in vitro study, three customized acrylic resin phantoms containing high‐density materials cylinders: titanium, copper–aluminum alloy and amalgam were scanned on three CBCT devices using high‐resolution protocols, same voxel size (0.2 mm) and different FOV s. After fully automatic segmentation and image registration, the same region of interest was defined for the small and medium FOV s. The difference between the segmented and the real volume of the metal cylinders was assessed. Moreover for each segmented slice, the area difference between the segmented and the real axial section was determined. The artifacts on the background were measured as normalizing standard deviation of voxel values in the vicinity of the cylinder, in three different distances. Results Considerable differences were observed in volume measurements for all CBCT s devices and materials for both FOV sizes (up to 67%). The slice per slice area analysis indicated higher artifacts at the edges of the metal cylinder. Within the materials, amalgam and titanium had, respectively, the worst and best artifact expression in all the CBCT devices. Standard deviation values varied differently between the three distances in each device. Conclusion Our in vitro study showed that different CBCT devices, high‐density materials and FOV should be considered while evaluating CBCT images. More carefully, diagnosis conclusions should be drawn in images containing amalgam and copper–aluminum alloy.