Quantitative analysis of metallic artifacts caused by dental metallic restorations: Comparison between four CBCT scanners

Omar, Gihan; Abdelsalam, Zeinab; Hamed, Walaa Mohamed

doi:10.1016/j.fdj.2016.04.001

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As in previous studies, 5,9,16,21 the objective evaluation of artifact production in CBCT images was performed by calculating the SD of gray values and CNR. SD values allow a general estimation of darkening and brightening extension caused by high-density materials as measure by the variation of gray values.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although previous studies have evaluated metal artifacts in CBCT images, the majority of them have been qualitative ones and few studies have quantitatively compared CBCT machines. 9,16 This factor is relevant since the different machines available in the market may present significant technical differences, which interfere with their image quality and artifact formation. 9,17 Additionally, besides the CBCT examination is not considered the first choice image for post-implant evaluation, 1 dental implants included in the scanned region in examinations performed for other purposes can compromise the image quality.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Magnitude of cone beam CT image artifacts related to zirconium and titanium implants: impact on image quality

Fontenele

Nascimento

Vasconcelos

et al. 2018

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnitude of cone beam CT image artifacts related to zirconium and titanium implants: impact on image quality

Fontenele

Nascimento

Vasconcelos

et al. 2018

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The HU of the four substances were measured from ten CT images; five captured when no metal substance was present (HU base ) and five when two titanium rods were present (HU metal ). CT number accuracy (DHU) was calculated as Equation (1).…”

Section: Ct Number Accuracy and Cnrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Image artifacts caused by the presence of metals sometimes affect the interpretation of computed tomography (CT) images [1,2] and the planning of radiation therapy [3]. Several metal artifact reduction (MAR) techniques have been developed to minimize metal artifacts in CT [4][5][6][7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative assessment of three vendor’s metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging using a customized phantom

Chou

Ying

et al. 2019

Computer Assisted Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A metal implant was placed in an acrylic phantom to enable quantitative analysis of the metal artifact reduction techniques used in computed tomography (CT) scanners from three manufacturers. Two titanium rods were placed in a groove in a cylindrical phantom made by acrylic, after which the groove was filled with water. The phantom was scanned using three CT scanners (Toshiba, GE, Siemens) under the abdomen CT setting. CT number accuracy, contrast-tonoise ratio, area of the metal rods in the images, and fraction of affected pixel area of water were measured using ImageJ. Different iterative reconstruction, dual energy, and metal artifact reduction techniques were compared within three vendors. The highest contrast-to-noise ratio of three scanners were 85.7 ± 8.4 (Toshiba), 85.9 ± 11.7 (GE), and 55.0 ± 14.8 (Siemens); and the most correct results of metal area were 157.1 ± 1.4 mm 2 (Toshiba), 155.0 ± 1.0 (GE), and 170.6 ± 5.3 (Siemens). The fraction of affected pixel area obtained using single-energy metal artifact reduction of Toshiba scanner was 2.2% ± 0.7%, which is more favorable than 4.1% ± 0.7% obtained using metal artifact reduction software of GE scanner (p ¼ 0.002). Among all quantitative results, the estimations with fraction of affected pixel areas matched the effect of metal artifact reduction in the actual images. Therefore, the single-energy metal artifact reduction technique of Toshiba scanner had a desirable effect. The metal artifact reduction software of GE scanner effectively reduced the effect of metal artifacts; however, it underestimated the size of the metal rods. The monoenergetic and dual energy composition techniques of Siemens scanner could not effectively reduce metal artifacts.

show abstract

“…The main expression of metal objects is high-density or low-density artifacts in a strip shape diverging from the metal objects [1]. This phenomenon may reduce image quality and even affect the interpretation and diagnosis of images [2,3]. A metal artifact reduction (MAR) technique can effectively reduce artifacts caused by metal implants [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of quantitative measurements of four manufacturer’s metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging with a self-made acrylic phantom

Chou

Chi

Lin

et al. 2020

THC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Metal artifact reduction (MAR) techniques can improve metal artifacts of computed tomography (CT) images. OBJECTIVE: This work focused on conducting a quantitative analysis to compare the effectiveness of four commercial MAR techniques on three types of metal implants (hip implant, spinal implant, and dental filling) with a self-made acrylic phantom. METHODS: A cylindrical phantom was made from acrylic with a groove in the middle, and then three types of metal implants were placed in the groove. The phantom was scanned by four CT scanners and four commercialized MAR techniques were used to analyze the images. The techniques used were single-energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR, Canon), smart metal artifact reduction software (Smart-MAR, GE), iterative metal artifact reduction (IMAR, Siemens), and metal artifact reduction for orthopedic implants (OMAR, Philips). Quantitative analysis methods included objective and subjective analysis. RESULTS: The expected value of SEMAR, Smart-MAR, IMAR, and OMAR were 36.6, 37.8, 5.0, and 2.3, respectively. SEMAR and Smart-MAR achieved optimal results. CONCLUSION: This study successfully evaluated the effects of four commercial MAR techniques on three types of metal implants in a phantom. All MAR techniques effectively reduced metal artifacts, but the effect was not significant with dental fillings due to high-density material.

show abstract

Quantitative analysis of metallic artifacts caused by dental metallic restorations: Comparison between four CBCT scanners

Cited by 8 publications

References 31 publications

Magnitude of cone beam CT image artifacts related to zirconium and titanium implants: impact on image quality

Magnitude of cone beam CT image artifacts related to zirconium and titanium implants: impact on image quality

Quantitative assessment of three vendor’s metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging using a customized phantom

Comparison of quantitative measurements of four manufacturer’s metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging with a self-made acrylic phantom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About