Cansu BÜYÜK, BELDE ARSAN, Tamer Lütfi ERDEM, Özgür ERDOĞAN

Promax artefakt azaltma algoritmasının titanyum ve zirkonyum implantların oluşturduğu artefaktlar üzerine etkisi

Amaç: Artefaktlar görüntü kalitesini düşürürler. Literatürde titanyum (Ti) ve zirkonyum (Zr) implant artefaktları ile ilgili çalışma sayısı kısıtlıdır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı çekim parametreleri ile ProMax Artefakt Azaltma Algoritması’nın (AAA) konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) görüntülerinde Ti ve Zr implantların oluşturduğu artefaktlar üzerine olan etkisinin değerlendirilmesi ve karşılaştırılmasıdır. Materyal ve Metod: Bir Zr ve bir Ti implant sığır kaburgasına yerleştirildi. Bu kemik ProMax 3D Mid KIBT cihazı ile tarandı. Görüntüler 70, 76, 80, 86 ve 90 kVp’de, 2 farklı voksel boyutunda (0.2 ve 0.4 mm) elde edildi. AAA kullanılarak ve kullanılmadan 20 çekim yapıldı. Elde edilen görüntüler ImageJ programına aktarıldı. Ortalama gri değeri (GV) ve standart sapma (SD) ile kontrast-gürültü oranı (CNR) hesaplandı. İstatistiksel analizlerde Pearson’s korelasyon katsayısı, Student’s t-test, ANOVA and multipl regresyon analizi testleri kullanıldı. Bulgular: AAA her iki implant grubunda da SD’yi anlamlı derecede azalttı (p

The effects of promax artefact reduction algorithm on artefacts induced by titanium and zirconium implants

Aim: Artefacts reduce image quality. There are a limited number of studies regarding the artefacts of titanium (Ti) and zirconium (Zr) implants. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of different acquisition parameters and ProMax artefact reduction algorithm (ARA) on the artefacts caused by Ti and Zr implants in cone beam CT (CBCT) images. Materials and Methods: One Zr and one Ti implant were inserted in a bovine rib. The bone was scanned with Pro- Max 3D Mid CBCT unit. Images were acquired using 70, 76, 80, 86 and 90 kVps at two different voxel sizes (0.2 and 0.4 mm). Twenty scans were obtained with and without using ARA. Acquired images were transferred to ImageJ program. Mean gray values (GV) and standard deviations (SD) were recorded and the contrast-noise ratio (CNR) was calculated. Statistical analysis was carried out with Pearson’s correlation coefficient, Student’s t-test, ANOVA and multiple regression analysis tests. Results: ARA reduced the SDs in both implant groups significantly (p

PDF

___

1. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Tinazzi Martini P, Bergamo Andreis IA. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 1998;8(9):1558-1564.
2. Arai Y, Tammisalo E, Iwai K, Hashimoto K and Shinoda K. Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28(4):245-248.
3. European Commission, Radiation Protection N° 172: Cone Beam CT for Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology Evidence-Based Guidelines. Luxemburg: European Commission; 2012. 36 p.
4. Schulze R, Heil U, Grob D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E et. al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40(5):265-273.
5. Bechara B, McMahan AC, Moore WS, Noujeim M, Teixeira FB et. al. Cone beam CT scans with and without artefact reduction in root fracture detection of endodontically treated teeth. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42(5): 20120245.
. Kuusisto N, Vallittu PK, Lassila LVJ, Huumonen S. Evaluation of intensity of artefacts in CBCT by radio-opacity of composite simulation models of implants in vitro. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;44(2):20140157.
7. Vasconcelos TV, Bechara BB, McMahan CA, de Freitasa DQ, Noujeimb M. Evaluation of artifacts generated by zirconium implants in cone-beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017;123(2):265-272.
8. Pauwels R, Stamatakis H, Bosmans H, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R et. al. Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24(A100): 94-99.
9. Pauwels R, Araki K, Siewerdsen JH, Thongvigitmanee SS. Technical aspects of dental CBCT: state of the art. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;44(1):20140224.
10. Mahnken AH, Raupach R, Wildberger JE, Jung B, Heussen N et. al. A new algorithm for metal artifact reduction in computed tomography: in vitro and in vivo evaluation after total hip replacement. Invest Radiol 2003;38(12):769-775.
11. Möller B, Terheyden H, Açil Y, Purcz NM, Hertrampf K et. al. A comparison of biocompatibility and osseointegration of ceramic and titanium implants: an in vivo and in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;41(5):638-645.
12. Smeets R, Schöllchen M, Gauer T, Aarabi G, Assaf AT et. al. Artefacts in multimodal imaging of titanium, zirconium and binary titanium-zirconium alloy dental implants: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017;46(2):20160267.
13. Sancho-Puchades M, Hammerle CH, Benic GI. In vitro assessment of artifacts induced by titanium, titanium- zirconium and zirconium dioxide implants in conebeam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(10):1222-1228.
14. Bechara B, Moore WS, McMahan CA, Noujeim M. Metal artefact reduction with cone beam CT: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41(3):248-253.
15. Bechara B, McMahan CA, Moore WS, Noujeim M, Geha H et. al. Contrast-to-noise ratio difference in small field of view cone beam computed tomography machines. J Oral Sci 2012;54(3):227-232.
16. Bechara B, McMahan CA, Geha H, Noujeim M. Evaluation of a cone beam CT artefact reduction algorithm. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41(5):422-428.
17. Demirturk Kocasarac H, Ustaoglu G, Bayrak S, Katkar R, Geha H et. al. Evaluation of artifacts generated by titanium, zirconium, and titanium-zirconium alloy dental implants on MRI, CT, and CBCT images: A phantom study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2019;127:535- 544.
18. Candemil AP, Salmon B, Freitas DQ, Bovi Ambrosano GM, Haiter-Neto F et. al. Are metal artefact reduction algorithms effective to correct cone beam CT artefacts arising from the exomass? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2019;48,20180290.