Effect of object position in the field of view and application of a metal artifact reduction algorithm on the detection of vertical root fractures on cone-beam computed tomography scans: An in vitro study
10.5624/isd.2018.48.4.245
- Author:
Ava NIKBIN
1
;
Zahra DALILI KAJAN
;
Mehran TARAMSARI
;
Negar KHOSRAVIFARD
Author Information
1. Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Tooth Fracture;
Artifact;
Diagnosis;
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
- MeSH:
Artifacts;
Bicuspid;
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography;
Dental Pulp Cavity;
Diagnosis;
Humans;
In Vitro Techniques;
Ribs;
Tooth;
Tooth Fractures
- From:Imaging Science in Dentistry
2018;48(4):245-254
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To assess the effects of object position in the field of view (FOV) and application of a metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithm on the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for the detection of vertical root fractures (VRFs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty human single-canal premolars received root canal treatment. VRFs were induced in 30 endodontically treated teeth. The teeth were then divided into 4 groups, with 2 groups receiving metal posts and the remaining 2 only having an empty post space. The roots from different groups were mounted in a phantom made of cow rib bone, and CBCT scans were obtained for the 4 different groups. Three observers evaluated the images independently. RESULTS: The highest frequency of correct diagnoses of VRFs was obtained with the object positioned centrally in the FOV, using the MAR algorithm. Peripheral positioning of the object without the MAR algorithm yielded the highest sensitivity for the first observer (66.7%). For the second and third observers, a central position improved sensitivity, with or without the MAR algorithm. In the presence of metal posts, central positioning of the object in the FOV significantly increased the diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy compared to peripheral positioning. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic accuracy was higher with central positioning than with peripheral positioning, irrespective of whether the MAR algorithm was applied. However, the effect of the MAR algorithm was more significant with central positioning than with peripheral positioning of the object in the FOV. The clinical experience and expertise of the observers may serve as a confounder in this respect.
