Impact of the blooming artefact on dental implant dimensions in 13 cone-beam computed tomography devices

Abstract

Background The purpose of this study was to objectively assess dimensional alteration (blooming artefact) on dental implant using 13 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices adjusted to device-specific scanning protocols and to assess whether subjective adjustment of brightness and contrast (B&C) could alter its visualization. Methods An anthropomorphic phantom containing a dental implant was scanned in 13 CBCT devices adjusted to three scanning protocols: medium-FOV standard resolution, small-FOV standard resolution, and small-FOV high resolution. The diameter of the implant was measured at five levels, averaged, and compared with those from a reference standard industrial CT image. B&C adjustments were performed and measurements were repeated. The intraclass correlation coefficient assessed the reliability of the measurements and general linear mixed models were applied for multiples comparisons at a 95% confidence interval. Results Implant diameter obtained from small-FOV high-resolution protocols in most CBCT devices was not significantly different when compared to that from the reference (p > 0.05). For standard protocols, significant dimensional alteration of the implant ranging from 23 to 34% (0.67 to 1.02 mm) was observed in 9 CBCT devices for small-FOV scanning (p < 0.05), and in 8 CBCT devices for medium-FOV scanning, implant dimensional alteration ranged significantly from 21 to 35% (0.62 to 1.04 mm). After B&C adjustments, dimensional alteration was reduced for several of the CBCT devices tested (p < 0.05). Conclusions The visualization of the implant dimensional alteration differed between CBCT devices and scanning protocols with an increase in diameter ranging from 0.27 to 1.04 mm. For most CBCT devices, B&C adjustments allowed to reduce visualization of implant blooming.

The impact of implant‐related characteristics on dental implant blooming: An in vitro study

“…In order to mimic the clinical situation, an anthropomorphic phantom, consisting of a dry dentate human skull and the 3D printed mandible covered with Mix‐D, a material shown to simulate soft tissue attenuation (Jones & Raine, 1949; Oenning et al, 2019; Wanderley et al, 2021) was used. Models of the tongue, cheek and lips from the same material were positioned in their respective regions around the mandible.…”

“…Window width was set to 4000, and window level to C + 1000. The goal was to increase the reproducibility of the viewing settings, considering the known impact of window and level changes on blooming artifacts (Coelho‐Silva et al, 2020; Wanderley et al, 2021). Figure 3 shows relevant CBCT cross‐sections of the calibration step.…”

“…The degree of implant blooming largely depends on the CBCT device and scanning protocol (Codari et al, 2017; Draenert et al, 2007; Pauwels et al, 2016; Pauwels, Seynaeve, et al, 2015). Wanderley et al (2021) compared 13 cone‐beam devices regarding their blooming artifacts on dental implant diameter including field of view (FOV), change in image brightness and contrast (B&C), and resolution. Small FOV high‐resolution protocols produced an increase in implant diameter of between 0.27 mm (9%) and 0.59 mm (20%).…”

Influence of metal artefact reduction on the diagnosis of contact between implant and mandibular canal in cone beam computed tomography: An ex‐vivo study

“…Previous studies have investigated CBCT-related parameters in artefact generation, such as tube current (mA), field of view (FOV), tube voltage (kV) and CBCT unit-specific factors (Codari et al, 2017;Freitas et al, 2018;Pauwels et al, 2013;Safi et al, 2022;Sawicki et al, 2022;Schulze et al, 2010Schulze et al, , 2011Wanderley et al, 2021).…”

“…Previous studies have investigated CBCT‐related parameters in artefact generation, such as tube current (mA), field of view (FOV), tube voltage (kV) and CBCT unit‐specific factors (Codari et al, 2017; Freitas et al, 2018; Pauwels et al, 2013; Safi et al, 2022; Sawicki et al, 2022; Schulze et al, 2010, 2011; Wanderley et al, 2021). Artefact generation has been studied and related to the CBCT unit (Freitas et al, 2018; Vasconcelos et al, 2019; De Faria Vasconcelos et al, 2020), artefact‐generating material (Queiroz et al, 2018; Vasconcelos et al, 2019; De Faria Vasconcelos et al, 2020; Mancini et al, 2021), positioning (Vasconcelos et al, 2019) and scanning protocol (Freitas et al, 2018; Khosravifard et al, 2021; Mancini et al, 2021; Vasconcelos et al, 2019).…”