The role of implants and implant prostheses on the accuracy and artifacts of cone-beam computed tomography: an in-vitro study.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jan 2024
06 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
21
06
2023
accepted:
03
01
2024
medline:
7
1
2024
pubmed:
7
1
2024
entrez:
6
1
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To assess the accuracy of CBCT in implant-supported prostheses and to evaluate metal artifacts with and without implants or implant prostheses. Accuracy and artifacts were assessed in the dried mandible at three points on the buccal and lingual cortical plates on the mandible's body near the crest and the base. On the buccal cortical plate, these points were labelled as A, B and C near the crest and D, E and F near the base of the body of the mandible. Similarly, points a to f were marked on the lingual cortical plate corresponding to points A to F. The study had two control groups, C0 for physical linear measurement (PLM) and C1 for radiographic linear measurement (RLM) and artifact assessment. There were seven test groups, TG 1 to 7, progressing from a single implant to implant full-arch prosthesis. For accuracy assessment, PLM was compared to RLM. CBCT artifacts were investigated in images integrated at 0.25 mm, 10 mm, and 20 mm at regions of interest on concentric circles at different intersecting angles by comparing grayscale values at C1 and TG1 to 7. The data were collected and statistically analyzed. A significant difference was observed between C0 and C1, and RLM in test groups at the superior axial plane. Similarly, PLM and test RLM in the sagittal plane at A-B, B-C, and D-E were statistically significant. A significant difference between PLM and RLM was also observed in the vertical plane at A-D, B-E, and C-F. Quantification of CBCT artifacts in the presence of implants or prostheses revealed that full-arch prostheses had the highest mean grayscale value, whereas single implants with a prosthesis had the lowest. The mean grayscale change was greatest around the implant and implant prosthesis. The mean grayscale value was maximum at 20 mm voxel integration scales (VIS) and lowest at 0.25 mm. CBCT is a clinically reliable device. Metal in implants or implant-supported prostheses prevents true assessment of the peri-implant area; therefore, lower VIS is suggested in the presence of implants or implant prostheses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38184751
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-51293-3
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-51293-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
704Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Danforth, R. A. Cone beam volume tomography: A new digital imaging option for dentistry. J. Calif. Dent. Assoc. 31, 814–815 (2003).
pubmed: 14696832
Shah, N., Bansal, N. & Logani, A. Recent advances in imaging technologies in dentistry. World J. Radiol. 6, 794–807 (2014).
doi: 10.4329/wjr.v6.i10.794
pubmed: 25349663
pmcid: 4209425
Hendrikx, A. W., Maal, T., Dieleman, F., Van Cann, E. M. & Merkx, M. A. Cone-beam CT in the assessment of mandibular invasion by oral squamous cell carcinoma: Results of the preliminary study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 39, 436–439 (2010).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.02.008
pubmed: 20211543
Closmann, J. J. & Schmidt, B. L. The use of cone beam computed tomography as an aid in evaluating and treatment planning for mandibular cancer. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 65, 766–771 (2007).
doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.12.053
pubmed: 17368377
Tyndall, D. A. & Rathore, S. Cone-beam CT diagnostic applications: Caries, periodontal bone assessment, and endodontic applications. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 52, 825–841 (2008).
doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.002
pubmed: 18805231
Mozzo, P., Procacci, C., Tacconi, A., Martini, P. T. & Andreis, I. A. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: Preliminary results. Eur. Radiol. 8, 1558–1564 (1998).
doi: 10.1007/s003300050586
pubmed: 9866761
Scarfe, W. C. Imaging of maxillofacial trauma: Evolutions and emerging revolutions. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 100, S75-96 (2005).
doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.05.057
pubmed: 16037795
Schulze, R. et al. Artefacts in CBCT: A review. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 40, 265–273 (2011).
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/30642039
pubmed: 21697151
pmcid: 3520262
Benic, G. I., Sancho-Puchades, M., Jung, R. E., Deyhle, H. & Hämmerle, C. H. In vitro assessment of artifacts induced by titanium dental implants in cone beam computed tomography. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 24, 378–383 (2013).
doi: 10.1111/clr.12048
pubmed: 23106603
Lee, M. Y., Song, K. H., Lee, J. W., Choe, B. Y. & Suh, T. S. Metal artifacts with dental implants: Evaluation using a dedicated CT/MR oral phantom with registration of the CT and MR images. Sci. Rep. 9, 754 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-36227-0
pubmed: 30679454
pmcid: 6346083
Torres, M. G., Campos, P. S., Segundo, N. P., Navarro, M. & Crusoé-Rebello, I. Accuracy of linear measurements in cone beam computed tomography with different voxel sizes. Implant Dent. 21, 150–155 (2012).
doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e31824bf93c
pubmed: 22382754
Sheikhi, M., Dakhil-Alian, M. & Bahreinian, Z. Accuracy and reliability of linear measurements using tangential projection and cone beam computed tomography. Dent. Res. J. 12, 271–277 (2015).
Al-Ekrish, A. A. Comparative study of the accuracy of CBCT implant site measurements using different software programs. Saudi Dent. J. 33, 355–361 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.07.003
pubmed: 34434039
Amarnath, G. S. et al. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography, orthopantomography with direct ridge mapping for pre-surgical planning to place implants in cadaveric mandibles: An ex-vivo study. J. Int. Oral Health 7, 38–42 (2015).
pubmed: 26225103
pmcid: 4516070
Draenert, F. G., Coppenrath, E., Herzog, P., Müller, S. & Mueller-Lisse, U. G. Beam hardening artefacts occur in dental implant scans with the NewTom cone beam CT but not with the dental 4-row multidetector CT. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 36, 198–203 (2007).
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/32579161
pubmed: 17536086
Chen, L. C., Lundgren, T., Hallström, H. & Cherel, F. Comparison of different methods of assessing alveolar ridge dimensions prior to dental implant placement. J. Periodontol. 79, 401–405 (2008).
doi: 10.1902/jop.2008.070021
pubmed: 18315421
Schulze, R. K., Berndt, D. & d'Hoedt, B. On cone-beam computed tomography artifacts induced by titanium implants. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 21(1), 100–7 (2010).
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01817.x
pubmed: 19845706
Maroua, A. L., Ajaj, M. & Hajeer, M. Y. The accuracy and reproducibility of linear measurements made on CBCT-derived digital models. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 17, 294–299 (2016).
doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1844
pubmed: 27340163
Ganguly, R., Ramesh, A. & Pagni, S. The accuracy of linear measurements of maxillary and mandibular edentulous sites in cone-beam computed tomography images with different fields of view and voxel sizes under simulated clinical conditions. Imaging Sci. Dent. 46, 93–101 (2016).
doi: 10.5624/isd.2016.46.2.93
pubmed: 27358816
pmcid: 4925656
Menezes, C. C., Janson, G., da Silveira, M. C., Cambiaghi, L. & Garib, D. G. Precision, reproducibility, and accuracy of bone crest level measurements of CBCT cross sections using different resolutions. Angle Orthod. 86, 535–542 (2016).
doi: 10.2319/040115-214.1
pubmed: 26488463
Gröbe, A. et al. Accuracy of bone measurements in the vicinity of titanium implants in CBCT data sets: A comparison of radiological and histological findings in minipigs. Biomed. Res. Int. 2017, 3848207 (2017).
doi: 10.1155/2017/3848207
pubmed: 28798929
pmcid: 5536141
Bohner, LOL., Tortamano, P., Marotti, J. Accuracy of linear measurements around dental implants by means of cone beam computed tomography with different exposure parameters. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 46(5), 20160377 (2017).
Rokn, A. R. et al. Accuracy of linear measurements using cone beam computed tomography in comparison with clinical measurements. J. Dent. 13, 333–339 (2016).
Gerlach, N. L. et al. Reproducibility of 3 different tracing methods based on cone beam computed tomography in determining the anatomical position of the mandibular canal. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 68, 811–817 (2010).
doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.09.059
pubmed: 20036043
Luangchana, P., Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri, S., Kiattavorncharoen, S. & Jirajariyavej, B. Accuracy of linear measurements using cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in dental implant treatment planning. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 30, 1287–1294 (2015).
doi: 10.11607/jomi.4073
pubmed: 26574854
De Man, B., Nuyts, J., Dupont, P., Marchal, G. & Suetens, P. Metal streak artifacts in X-ray computed tomography: A simulation study. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 46, 691–696 (1999).
doi: 10.1109/23.775600
Miracle, A. C. & Mukherji, S. K. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 1: Physical principles. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 30, 1088–1095 (2009).
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1653
pubmed: 19439484
pmcid: 7051341
Kuo, R. F., Fang, K. M., Ty, W. & Hu, C. Y. Quantification of dental prostheses on cone-beam CT images by the Taguchi method. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 17, 207–220 (2016).
doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i1.5826
pubmed: 26894354
pmcid: 5690196
Fontenele, R. C., Nascimento, E. H., Vasconcelos, T. V., Noujeim, M. & Freitas, D. Q. Magnitude of cone beam CT image artifacts related to zirconium and titanium implants: Impact on image quality. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 47, 20180021 (2018).
doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20180021
pubmed: 29668300
pmcid: 6196050
Terrabuio, B. R. et al. Cone-beam computed tomography artifacts in the presence of dental implants and associated factors: An integrative review. Imaging Sci. Dent. 51, 93–106 (2021).
doi: 10.5624/isd.20200320
pubmed: 34235055
pmcid: 8219451
Pauwels, R. et al. Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 24, 94–99 (2013).
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02382.x
pubmed: 22168574
Candemil, A. P. et al. Influence of voxel size on cone beam computed tomography artifacts arising from the exomass. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 132, 456–464 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2020.12.003
pubmed: 33422474