Quantitative analysis of metallic artifacts caused by dental metals: comparison of cone-beam and multi-detector row CT scanners

Abstract

Objectives To quantitatively compare the streak artifacts produced by dental metals in a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) device and a multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT) scanner in relation to metal types and imaging parameters. Methods Cubes of aluminum, titanium, cobalt-chromium alloy, and type IV gold alloy were scanned with CBCT and MDCT scanners at tube voltages of 80 and 100 peak kV (kVp), and currents of 100 and 170 mAs by MDCT, and 102 and 170 mAs by CBCT. Artifact areas were quantified using ImageJ software. Results Artifact areas for the same metals and imaging parameters were smaller with CBCT than with MDCT under most conditions. Type IV gold alloy caused the largest artifact areas, followed by cobalt-chromium alloy, titanium, and aluminum, respectively. Higher tube voltage was associated with smaller artifact areas under most conditions, whereas increasing tube current had no consistent effect on artifact area using either CT device.Conclusions CBCT was associated with smaller artifact areas than MDCT for the same parameters. Type IV gold alloy produced the largest artifact areas among the tested metals, but metallic artifacts could be reduced by increasing the tube voltage.

The influence of amalgam fillings on the detection of approximal caries by cone beam CT:invitrostudy

“…Some authors suggest that increasing the tube potential setting of the CBCT machine can reduce the number of artefacts present. [14][15][16][17] Hunter and McDavid 18 examined the possibility of reducing the cupping artefacts seen when Figure 2 A sound pre-molar tooth used in the study: (a) the microscopic section reveals a sound enamel and dentine on both the mesial and distal sides; (b) corresponding cropped image of CBCT examination that was interpreted by one observer as caries on both enamel and dentin on the mesial side. The second observer stated that there was only enamel demineralization but on both mesial and distal sides.…”

Motion artefacts in cone beam CT: anin vitrostudy about the effects on the images

“…These differences produce either artefacts typical of each technology 5,14,15 or cause the same type of artefact to manifest in a different way. 5,16,17 The aim of this study is to evaluate type, severity, area and extension of artefacts caused in CBCT by small movements (motion artefacts), applied to a dry skull, in order to determine the reasons of image deterioration, and to verify the conditions in which motion artefacts do not visually impair the images. This may lead to new technical solutions to reduce the number of retakes and consequently the overall radiation load to patients.…”

Metal and motion artifacts by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dental and maxillofacial study

“…This technique requires ultrathin layer thickness and high amperage, resulting in high exposure dose [1] and frequent artifacts from metallic material [2][3][4]. In recent years a technology named cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has been spreading, and it is replacing Dentascan-MSCT in the outpatient [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14], as it accurately studies dental arches with low radiation dose [15][16][17][18][19], although with longer acquisition time (AT).…”

“…The literature about motion artifacts [5,[21][22][23] is lacking, while it is certainly superior regarding metal artifacts [3][4][5][6][7][8][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. The majority of the works examine a limited number of cases, performed on phantoms or in vitro [3, 6-8, 21, 24-26, 29, 30].…”