Imaging science in dentistry · 2024
Impact of the spatial orientation of the patient's head, metal artifact reduction, and tube current on cone-beam computed tomography artifact expression adjacent to a dental implant: A laboratory study using a simulated surgical guide.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Barros-Costa Matheus, Barros-Candido Julia Ramos, Sampaio-Oliveira Matheus, Freitas Deborah Queiroz, Sverzut Alexander Tadeu, Oliveira Matheus L
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate image artifacts in the vicinity of dental implants in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans obtained with different spatial orientations, tube current levels, and metal artifact reduction algorithm (MAR) conditions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One dental implant and 2 tubes filled with a radiopaque solution were placed in the posterior region of a mandible using a surgical guide to ensure parallel alignment. CBCT scans were acquired with the mandible in 2 spatial orientations in relation to the X-ray projection plane (standard and modified) at 3 tube current levels: 5, 8, and 11 mA. CBCT scans were repeated without the implant and were reconstructed with and without MAR. The mean voxel and noise values of each tube were obtained and compared using multi-way analysis of variance and the Tukey test (α=0.05).
RESULTS: Mean voxel values were significantly higher and noise values were significantly lower in the modified orientation than in the standard orientation (P<0.05). MAR activation and tube current levels did not show significant differences in most cases of the modified spatial orientation and in the absence of the dental implant (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Modifying the spatial orientation of the head increased brightness and reduced spatial orientation noise in adjacent regions of a dental implant, with no influence from the tube current level and MAR.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One dental implant and 2 tubes filled with a radiopaque solution were placed in the posterior region of a mandible using a surgical guide to ensure parallel alignment. CBCT scans were acquired with the mandible in 2 spatial orientations in relation to the X-ray projection plane (standard and modified) at 3 tube current levels: 5, 8, and 11 mA. CBCT scans were repeated without the implant and were reconstructed with and without MAR. The mean voxel and noise values of each tube were obtained and compared using multi-way analysis of variance and the Tukey test (α=0.05).
RESULTS: Mean voxel values were significantly higher and noise values were significantly lower in the modified orientation than in the standard orientation (P<0.05). MAR activation and tube current levels did not show significant differences in most cases of the modified spatial orientation and in the absence of the dental implant (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Modifying the spatial orientation of the head increased brightness and reduced spatial orientation noise in adjacent regions of a dental implant, with no influence from the tube current level and MAR.