Serindere Gozdea, Aktuna Belgin Cerena, Serindere Mehmetb, Berkay Belgin Huseyinc, Orhan Kaand
aHatay Mustafa Kemal University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Hatay, Turkey
bHatay Education and Research Hospital, Department of Radiology, Antakya, Hatay, Turkey
cPrivate Dental Clinic, Hatay, Turkey
dAnkara University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Ankara, Turkey + Ankara University, Medical Design Application and Research Center (MEDITAM), Ankara, Turkey
Abstract
Background/Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate beam hardening artifacts generated by Grade 4 and Grade 5 dental implants on computed tomography (CT) images at low and high kilovoltage peaks (kVp). Material and Methods: A total of 16 implants, 8 of which were Grade 4 and 8 were Grade 5, were inserted into bovine ribs. CT images of bovine ribs were acquired using two different exposure protocol: low kVp and high kVp. Beam hardening artifacts generated by Grade 4 and Grade 5 dental implants were calculated by the mean Hounsfield unit (HU) within a standardized region-of-interest (ROI). Results: Artifact in Grade 4 implants were greater than that in Grade 5 implants. Also, artifacts at the high kVp were lower than that at the low kVp. Conclusions: CT scans providing HU values can be used to evaluate the beam hardening artifact. Beam hardening artifacts decreased in the CT images with high kVp. Grade 5 dental implants have an advantage by producing less severe beam hardening artifacts.
Keywords: beam hardening artifact; bone density; computed tomography; dental implant
Reference
Kalender WA. X-ray Computed Tomography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 2006; 51:R29-43
Wang G, Kalra M, Murugan V, Xi Y, Gjesteby L, Getzin M, et al. Simultaneous CT-MRI-next chapter of multimodality imaging. Med Phys 2015;42(10):5879-5889
Barrett JF, Keat N. Artefacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics, 2004;24:1679-1691
Boas FE, Fleischmann D. CT artifacts: Causes and reduction techniques. Imaging Med, 2012;4:229-240
White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 7th ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 2014: chapter 11.14.33
Elias C, Lima J, Valiev R, Meyers M. Biomedical applications of titanium and its alloys. J Miner Met Mater Soc, 2008;60:46-49
Razavi T, Palmer RM, Davies J, Wilson R, Palmer PJ. Accuracy of measuring the cortical bone thickness adjacent to dental implants using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2010;21:718-725
de-Azevedo-Vaz SL, Peyneau PD, Ramirez-Sotelo LR, Vasconcelos KdeF, PSF Campos, Haiter-Neto F. Efficacy of a cone beam computed tomography metal artefact reduction algorithm for the detection of peri-implant fenestrations and dehiscences. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2016;121:550-556
Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Dus I, et al. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2005;20:416-424
Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R. Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2011;22:873-879
Rao PS, Alfidi RJ. The environmental density artifact: a beam-hardening effect in computed tomography. Radiology, 1981;141:223-227
Pauwels R, Stamatakis H, Bosmans H, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R, Horner K, et al. Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2013;24:94-99
Korpics M, Johnson P, Patel R, Surucu M, Choi M, Emami B, et al. Metal artifact reduction in cone-beam computed tomography for head and neck radiotherapy. Technol Cancer Res Treat, 2015;15:NP88-NP94
Shokri A, Jamalpour MR, Khavid A, Mohseni Z, Sadeghi M. Effect of exposure parameters of cone beam computed tomography on metal artifact reduction around the dental implants in various bone densities. BMC Med Imaging, 2019;19:34
Chindasombatjaroen J, Kakimoto N, Murakami S, Maeda Y, Furukawa S. Quantitative analysis of metallic artifacts caused by dental metals: comparison of cone-beam and multi-detector row CT scanners. Oral Radiol, 2011;27:114-120
van der Schaaf I, van Leeuwen M, Vlassenbroek A, Velthuis B. Minimizing clip artifacts in multi CT angiography of clipped patients. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2006;27:60-66
Moon SG, Hong SH, Choi JY, Jun WS, Kang HG, Kim HS, et al. Metal artifact reduction by the alteration of technical factors in multidetector computed tomography: a 3 dimensional quantitative assessment. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2008;32:630-633
Naranjo V, Llorens R, Alcaniz M, Lopez-Mir F. Metal artifact reduction in dental CT images using polar mathematical morphology. Comput methods programs biomed, 2011;102:64-74
Kocasarac Demirturk H, Ustaoglu G, Bayrak S, Katkar R, Geha H, Deahl ST 2nd, et al. Evaluation of artifacts generated by titanium, zirconium, and titanium-zirconium alloy dental implants on MRI, CT, and CBCT images: a phantom study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2019;127:535-544
Leonhardt Å, Bergström C, Lekholm U. Microbiologic Diagnostics at Titanium Implants. Clin Implant Dentistry Relat Res, 2003;5:226-232
National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Database. Aluminum, AtomicNumber=13, https://pubchem. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/element/Aluminum (accessed on Apr. 22, 2020)
National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Database. Vanadium, AtomicNumber=23, https://pubchem. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/element/Vanadium (accessed on Apr. 22, 2020)
Draenert FG, Coppenrath E, Herzog P, Muller S, MuellerLisse UG. 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, 2007:36:198-203
Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine, 2023, vol. 27, br. 1, str. 28-31