Quantitative assessment of image artifacts from root filling materials on CBCT scans made using several exposure parameters.
10.5624/isd.2017.47.3.189
- Author:
Katharina Alves RABELO
1
;
Yuri Wanderley CAVALCANTI
;
Martina Gerlane DE OLIVEIRA PINTO
;
Saulo Leonardo SOUSA MELO
;
Paulo Sérgio Flores CAMPOS
;
Luciana Soares DE ANDRADE FREITAS OLIVEIRA
;
Daniela Pita DE MELO
Author Information
1. Department of Oral Diagnosis, State University of Paraíba, Campina Grande, Brazil. danipita@gmail.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Imaging, Three-Dimensional;
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography;
Artifacts
- MeSH:
Artifacts*;
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography;
Imaging, Three-Dimensional;
Tooth
- From:Imaging Science in Dentistry
2017;47(3):189-197
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To quantify artifacts from different root filling materials in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images acquired using different exposure parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen single-rooted teeth were scanned using 8 different exposure protocols with 3 different filling materials and once without filling material as a control group. Artifact quantification was performed by a trained observer who made measurements in the central axial slice of all acquired images in a fixed region of interest using ImageJ. Hyperdense artifacts, hypodense artifacts, and the remaining tooth area were identified, and the percentages of hyperdense and hypodense artifacts, remaining tooth area, and tooth area affected by the artifacts were calculated. Artifacts were analyzed qualitatively by 2 observers using the following scores: absence (0), moderate presence (1), and high presence (2) for hypodense halos, hypodense lines, and hyperdense lines. Two-way ANOVA and the post-hoc Tukey test were used for quantitative and qualitative artifact analysis. The Dunnet test was also used for qualitative analysis. The significance level was set at P<.05. RESULTS: There were no significant interactions among the exposure parameters in the quantitative or qualitative analysis. Significant differences were observed among the studied filling materials in all quantitative analyses. In the qualitative analyses, all materials differed from the control group in terms of hypodense and hyperdense lines (P<.05). Fiberglass posts did not differ statistically from the control group in terms of hypodense halos (P>.05). CONCLUSION: Different exposure parameters did not affect the objective or subjective observations of artifacts in CBCT images; however, the filling materials used in endodontic restorations did affect both types of assessments.
