Gulsun AKAY, Muhsin Sait KARATAŞ, Özge KARADAĞ, Özlem ÜÇOK, Kahraman GÜNGÖR

The incidence of artifacts in cone beam computed tomography images: A pilot study

Aim: Cone-beam computed tomography is an important diagnostic tool in dentistry. However, cone-beam computed tomographytechnology has various limitations such as image artifacts. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of various artifactsor errors in the cone-beam computed tomography images and to investigate the correlation between artifacts and parameters suchas age groups, gender, imaging areas and acquisition times.Material and Methods: Five different types of artifacts were evaluated. Patient’s age, gender, the reason for radiographic examination,the field of view (FOV), acquisition time, anatomical area and presence of artifacts were recorded. The Pearson Chi-Square andFisher’s Exact test were used for comparisons of the parameters.Results: The images of 600 patients aged from 6 to 88 years (mean age ± standard deviation: 36.2 ±16.8) were examined. The beamhardening (dark band or streaks) were the most common artifacts (38.8%). An increase in the number of artifacts was observed withthe increase in FOV and voxel size (p

PDF

___

1. Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Cone-beam CT of the head and neck, part 1: physical principles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1088-95.
2. Spin-Neto R,Wenzel A. Patient movement and motion artifacts in cone beam computed tomography of the dentomaxillofacial region: a systematic literature review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016;121:425-33.
3. Pauwels R, Araki K, Siewerdsen JH, et al. Technical aspects of dental CBCT: state of the art. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;44:20140224.
4. Alamri HM, Sadrameli M, Alshalhoob MA, et al. Applications of CBCT in dental practice: a review of the literature. Gen Dent 2012;60:390–400.
5. Kim JH, Arita ES, Pinheiro LR, et al. Computed tomographic artifacts in maxillofacial surgery. J Craniofac Surg 2018;29:78-80.
6. Hunter AK, Mc David WC. Characterization and correction of cupping effect artifacts in cone beam CT. Dentmaxillofac Radiol 2012;41:217-23.
7. Makins SR. Artifacts interfering with interpretation of cone beam computed tomography images. Dent Clin North Am 2014;58:485-95.
8. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, et al. Artifacts in CBCT: A review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40:265-73.
9. Kim DG. Can dental cone beam computed tomography assess bone mineral density? J Bone Metab 2014;21:117-26.
10. Yuan F, Chen L, Wang X, et al.Comparative evaluation of the artifacts index of dental materials on twodimensional cone-beam computed tomography. Sci Rep 2016;6:26107.
11. Jaju PP, Jain M, Singh A, et al. Artifacts in cone beam CT. Open J Stomat 2013;3:292-7.
12. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. Cone beam computed tomography. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ. eds. Oral Radiology. Principles and Interpretations. 7th edition. St. Louis Mosby Elsevier 2014;194-8.
13. Pauwels R, Stamatakis H, Bosmans H, et al Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;100:94–9.
14. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am 2008;52:707- 30.
15. Nardi C, Borri C, Regini F, et al. Metal and motion artifacts by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dental and maxillofacial study. Radiol Med 2015;120:618-26.
16. Chindasombatjareon J, Kakimoto N, Murakami S, et al. Quantitative analysis of metallic artifacts caused by dental metals: comparison of cone-beam and multidetector row CT scanners. Oral Radiol 2011;27:114–20.
17. Esmaelli F, Johari M, Haddadi P, et al. Beam hardening artifacts: comparison between two cone-beam computed tomography scanners. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect 2012;6:49-53.
18. Benic GI, Sancho-Puchades M, Jung RE, et al. In vitro assessment of artifacts induced by titanium dental implants in cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:378-83.
19. Oliveira ML, Freitas DQ, Ambrosano GM, et al. Influence of exposure factors on the variability of CBCT voxel values: a phantom study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014;43:20140128.
20. Goldman LW. Principles of CT: radiation dose and image quality. J Nucl Med Technol 2007;35:213–25.
21. European Commission. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology: evidence-based guidelines. Radiation Protection Publication, 2012;172.
22. Horner K, Islam M, Flygare L, et al. Basic principles for use of dental cone beam CT: consensus guidelines of the European Academy of Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009;38:187-95.
23. Kamburoglu K, Murat S, Kolsuz E, et al. Comparative assessment of subjective image quality of crosssectional cone-beam computed tomography scans. J Oral Sci 2011;53:501-8.
24. Yıldızer Keriş E. Effect of patient anxiety on image motion artifacts in CBCT. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:73.
25. Donaldson K, O’Connor S, Heath N. Dental cone beam CT image quality possibly reduced by patient movement. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42:91866873.
26. Hanzelka T, Foltan R, Horka E, et al. Reduction of the negative influence of patient motion on quality of CBCT scan. Med Hypotheses 2010;75:610-12.
27. Lee R, Azevedo B, Shintaku W, et al. Patient movement in three different CBCT units. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radio Endod 2008;105:55.