Purpose: This study examined the influence of a metal artifact reduction (MAR) tool, sharpening filters, and their combination on the diagnosis of vertical root fracture (VRF) in teeth with metallic posts using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: Twenty single-rooted human premolars - 9 with VRF and 11 without - were individually placed in a human mandible. A metallic post composed of a cobalt-chromium alloy was inserted into the root canal of each tooth. CBCT scans were then acquired under the following parameters: 8 mA, a 5 × 5 cm field of view, a voxel size of 0.085 mm, 90 kVp, and with MAR either enabled or disabled. Five oral and maxillofacial radiologistsindependently evaluated the CBCT exams under each MAR mode and across 3 sharpening filter conditions: no filter, Sharpen 1 × , and Sharpen 2 × . The diagnostic performance was quantified by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. These metrics were compared using 2-way analysis of variance with a significance level of α = 5%. Intra- and inter-examiner agreement were assessed using the weighted kappa test. Results: Neither MAR nor the application of sharpening filters significantly impacted AUC or specificity (P>0.05). However, sensitivity increased when MAR was combined with Sharpen 1 × and Sharpen 2 × (P = 0.015). The intraexaminer agreement ranged from fair to substantial (0.34-0.66), while the inter-examiner agreement ranged from fair to moderate (0.27-0.41). Conclusion MAR in conjunction with sharpening filters improved VRF detection; therefore, their combined use is recommended in cases of suspected VRF.

PURPOSE: This study was performed to evaluate the magnitude of artifacts produced by gutta-percha and metal posts on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans obtained with different tube currents and with or without metal artifact reduction (MAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A tooth was inserted in a dry human mandible socket, and CBCT scans were acquired after root canal instrumentation, root canal filling, and metal post placement with various tube currents with and without MAR activation. The artifact magnitude was assessed by the standard deviation (SD) of gray values and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) at the various distances from the tooth. Data were compared using multi-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: At all distances, a current of 4 mA was associated with a higher SD and a lower CNR than 8 mA or 10 mA (P<0.05). For the metal posts without MAR, the artifact magnitude as assessed by SD was greatest at 1.5 cm or less (P<0.05). When MAR was applied, SD values for distances 1.5 cm or closer to the tooth were reduced (P<0.05). MAR usage did not influence the magnitude of artifacts in the control and gutta-percha groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSION Increasing the tube current from 4 mA to 8 mA may reduce the magnitude of artifacts from metal posts. The magnitude of artifacts arising from metal posts was significantly higher at distances of 1.5 cm or less than at greater distances. MAR usage improved image quality near the metal post, but had no significant influence farther than 1.5 cm from the tooth.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the influence of kilovoltage- peak (kVp) and the metal artifact reduction (MAR) tool on the detection of buccal and lingual peri-implant dehiscence in the presence of titanium-zirconia (Ti-Zr) and zirconia (Zr) implants in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Materials and Methods: Twenty implant sites were created in the posterior region of human mandibles, including control sites (without dehiscence) and experimental sites (with dehiscence). Individually, a Ti-Zr or Zr implant was placed in each implant site. CBCT scans were performed using a Picasso Trio device, with variation in the kVp setting (70 or 90 kVp) and whether the MAR tool was used. Three oral radiologists scored the detection of dehiscence using a 5-point scale. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated and compared by multi-way analysis of variance (α= 0.05). Results: The kVp, cortical plate involved (buccal or lingual cortices), and MAR did not influence any diagnostic values (P>0.05). The material of the implant did not influence the ROC curve values (P>0.05). In contrast, the sensitivity and specificity were statistically significantly influenced by the implant material (P<0.05) with Zr implants showing higher sensitivity values and lower specificity values than Ti-Zr implants. Conclusion The detection of peri-implant dehiscence was not influenced by kVp, use of the MAR tool, or the cortical plate. Greater sensitivity and lower specificity were shown for the detection of peri-implant dehiscence in the presence of a Zr implant.