SavedAdd your journal

Journals / European Oral Research / 2020 / Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 1

Contrast-to-noise ratios of different dental restorative materials: An in-vitro cone beam computed tomography study

Seval BAYRAK
Emine Sebnem KURSUN CAKMAK
Hakan KAMALAK
Pages
36–41
Publication Date
2020-01-23
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion AR mode was effective in reducing artifacts arising from dental materials on CBCT images, so it is necessary to use AR mode for correct diagnoses.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose In radiological views, strong beam hardening and streaking artifacts occur due to high-density structures and polyenergetic X-ray beams, and these lead to misdiagnosis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods A total of 108 molar teeth were restored with nine different groups of restorative materials, with each group containing 12 teeth.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion AR mode was effective in reducing artifacts arising from dental materials on CBCT images, so it is necessary to use AR mode for correct diagnoses.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Cone-Beam Computed Tomography · ontrast-to-noise ratio · dental materials

Abstract

Purpose In radiological views, strong beam hardening and streaking artifacts occur due to high-density structures and polyenergetic X-ray beams, and these lead to misdiagnosis. This study was performed in vitro to compare the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of commonly used dental restorative materials by using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images with and without artifact reduction (AR) mode. Materials and Methods A total of 108 molar teeth were restored with nine different groups of restorative materials, with each group containing 12 teeth. Teeth were placed in a dry human mandible and scanned, one by one, via Planmeca 3D ProMax (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) with and without AR mode. Images were analyzed using ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) to calculate the CNR. Results CNR was calculated to be the highest in compomer (Glassiosite) images without AR mode (mean: 3.36) and with AR mode (mean: 3.61). CNR was calculated to be the lowest in amalgam (Tytin) images without AR mode (mean: 0.21) and with AR mode (mean: 0.23). A significant difference was found between materials in terms of CNR measurements (p ≤ 0.05). CNR measurements were increased after the AR mode application (p ≤ 0.05). Conclusion AR mode was effective in reducing artifacts arising from dental materials on CBCT images, so it is necessary to use AR mode for correct diagnoses.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAYRAK, S., CAKMAK, E. S. K., KAMALAK, H. (2020). Contrast-to-noise ratios of different dental restorative materials: An in-vitro cone beam computed tomography study. European Oral Research, Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 1, 36–41. https://ajindex.com/articles/243102

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Scarfe WC, Li Z, Aboelmaaty W, Scott SA, Farman AG. Maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: essence, elements and steps to interpretation. Aust Dent J 2012
  2. 57(Suppl 1):46-60. [CrossRef] 2. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am 2008
  3. 52(4):707-30. [CrossRef] 3. Pauwels R, Silkosessak O, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H, Panmekiate S. A pragmatic approach to determine the optimal kVp in cone beam CT: balancing contrast-to-noise ratio and radiation dose. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014
  4. 43(5):20140059. [CrossRef] 4. Panjnoush M, Kheirandish Y, Kashani PM, Fakhar HB, Younesi F, Mallahi M. Effect of Exposure Parameters on Metal Artifacts in Cone Beam Computed Tomography. J Dent (Tehran) 2016
  5. 13(3):143-50. 5. Kim MS, Kim BY, Choi HY, Choi YJ, Oh SH, Kang JH, et al. Intravenous contrast media application using cone-beam computed tomography in a rabbit model. Imaging Sci Dent 2015
  6. 45(1):31-9. [CrossRef] 6. Queiroz PM, Oliveira ML, Groppo FC, Haiter-Neto F, Freitas DQ. Evaluation of metal artefact reduction in cone-beam computed tomography images of different dental materials. Clin Oral Investig 2018
  7. 22(1):419-23. [CrossRef] 7. Taylor C. Evaluation of the effects of positioning and configuration on contrast-to-noise ratio in the quality control of a 3D Accuitomo 170 dental CBCT system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016
  8. 45(5):20150430. [CrossRef] 8. Cebe F, Aktan AM, Ozsevik AS, Ciftci ME, Surmelioglu HD. The effects of different restorative materials on the detection of approximal caries in cone-beam computed tomography scans with and without metal artifact reduction mode. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017
  9. 123(3):392-400. [CrossRef] 9. Demirturk Kocasarac H, Helvacioglu Yigit D, Bechara B, Sinanoglu A, Noujeim M. Contrast-to-noise ratio with different settings in a CBCT machine in presence of different root-end filling materials: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016
  10. 45(5):20160012. [CrossRef] 10. Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics 2004
  11. 24(6):1679-91. [CrossRef] 11. Wang L, D'Alpino PH, Lopes LG, Pereira JC. Mechanical properties of dental restorative materials: relative contribution of laboratory tests. J Appl Oral Sci 2003
  12. 11(3):162-7. [CrossRef] 12. Bechara B, Alex McMahan C, Moore WS, Noujeim M, Teixeira FB, Geha H. Cone beam CT scans with and without artefact reduction in root fracture detection of endodontically treated teeth. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013