SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Annals of Medical Research / 2019 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 11

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

Gulsun AKAY
Muhsin Sait KARATAŞ
Özge KARADAĞ
Özlem ÜÇOK
Kahraman GÜNGÖR
Pages
2581–2586
Publication Date
2022-10-12
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)

An increase in the number of artifacts was observed withthe increase in FOV and voxel size (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Cone-beam computed tomography is an important diagnostic tool in dentistry.
📊
Key Findings & Data: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.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:An increase in the number of artifacts was observed withthe increase in FOV and voxel size (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

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

🔖

Cite This Article

AKAY, G., KARATAŞ, M. S., KARADAĞ, Ö., ÜÇOK, Ö., GÜNGÖR, K. (2022). The incidence of artifacts in cone beam computed tomography images: A pilot study. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 11, 2581–2586. https://ajindex.com/articles/447326

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  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 C