Evaluation of motion artifacts in cone-beam computed tomography with three different patient positioning

Keriş, Elif Yıldızer; Demirel, Özlem; Özdede, Melih

doi:10.1007/s11282-020-00446-x

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They concluded that not all motion types affect the image quality equally, and movements of short duration and gradual movements affect the image differently [ 12 ]. Keris et al did a retrospective study comparing the effect of motion on images with different patient positioning and found no significant impact of motion positioning [ 13 ]. However, while evaluating the effect of different types of motion on images, both of these studies are subjective and do not consider the possibility of motion correction systems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of a Motion Artifact Correction System on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Image Characteristics

Pahadia¹,

Katkar²,

Geha³

2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Determine the effect of the motion correction system on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image quality parameters, artifacts, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) using different motion settings. Materials and methods: A customized phantom insert array was prepared using SEDENTEX CT IQ Phantom (Leeds Test Objects, Yorkshire, England) stabilized over a rotating electric turntable. Thirty baseline CBCT scans were acquired with standardized technique factors on the ProMax 3D (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) machine using combinations of different motion settings, including no motion, three- and six-degree motion, and with and without the use of a motion correction system. The standardized images were exported to ImageJ software. Image quality parameters, artifacts, and CNR values were evaluated and compared among the different acquisition settings. Results: The use of the motion correction system algorithm compared with the different motion settings showed a statistically significant difference for all the parameters (p<0.05) except for artifact values for six-degree motion (p<0.07). The effect of different motion settings on the parameters was not statistically significant. Conclusion: The use of a motion correction system, a proprietary algorithm-based system incorporated in the ProMax 3D CBCT unit, deteriorates the image quality characteristics evaluated in this in vitro study, namely artifact value and CNR. Its use in clinical settings might be limited to situations where patient motion is expected and appropriate head stabilization is not possible due to age or disease.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of a Motion Artifact Correction System on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Image Characteristics

Pahadia¹,

Katkar²,

Geha³

2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CBCT images of younger and older age groups had higher chances of motion artifact as compared to the middle age group observed in many studies. 10 , 14 - 16 A study done in Turkey concluded that motion artifact was significantly higher in images taken in standing position, however, no correlation was observed in sitting and supine positions. 16 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 10 , 14 - 16 A study done in Turkey concluded that motion artifact was significantly higher in images taken in standing position, however, no correlation was observed in sitting and supine positions. 16 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artifacts among Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images of Patients of Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology in a Tertiary Care Centre: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Cone beam computed tomography is widely used as a mode of investigation in the field of dentistry. Although presenting a three-dimensional picture of head and neck structures it does carry drawbacks in the form of artifacts which not only degrade image quality but a repeat of the radiograph leading the patient to radiation exposure again. This study aimed to find out the prevalence of artifacts among cone beam computed tomography images of patients visiting tertiary care centre. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted on cone beam computed tomography images of patients in the archives of dental radiology at the Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology wherein all cone beam computed tomography radiographs of patients after taking an ethical approval from Institutional Review Committee from 1 January 2019 to 19 March 2022 were included in the study. The study included 780 image of patients. Convenience sampling was used. The artifact when present was noted and categorised as inherent artifacts, procedure-related artifacts, introduced artifacts and patient motion artifacts. Point estimate and 95% Confidence Interval were calculated. Results: Among 780 cone beam computed tomography image patients, artifacts were seen in 665 (85.25%) (82.76-87.74, 95% Confidence Interval) study images. Conclusions: The prevalence of artifacts among cone beam computed tomography images of patients is similar to the studies done in similar settings.

show abstract

“…Its effect on patient movement was similarly rarely investigated, if not none [44]. A simulation study [45] and a retrospective image inspection study [46] showed that supine position seemed to produce less motion artifact. A patient study on children similarly reported that supine position was associated with reduced severe head motion [47].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reject Rates of Radiographic Images in Dentomaxillofacial Radiology: A Literature Review

Yeung

Wong

2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report surveyed the image reject rates of intra-oral, extra-oral, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging in the academic literature. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were queried in mid-April 2021. Manual screening of the reference lists of the identified publications was performed to identify papers missed from the database search. All publications returned by the searches were initially included. Exclusion criteria included irrelevance, no reporting of reject rate, no access to the article, and not original article. The total number of images and the number of rejects were recorded for each type of radiographic images. Factors and commonest errors associated with the rejects were recorded. Twenty-six original articles were identified and reviewed. The average reject rate was 11.25% for bitewings, 16.38% for periapicals, 4.10% for panoramics, 6.08% for lateral cephalography, and 2.77% for CBCT. Positioning error and patient movement were two common reasons for the rejects. The average reject rates computed from data pooled across studies should form the reference values for quality assurance programs to follow. Future reject analysis studies should report more radiographic parameters such as type of collimation for intra-oral radiography and patient posture for CBCT.

show abstract

Evaluation of motion artifacts in cone-beam computed tomography with three different patient positioning

Cited by 12 publications

References 20 publications

Effect of a Motion Artifact Correction System on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Image Characteristics

Effect of a Motion Artifact Correction System on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Image Characteristics

Artifacts among Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images of Patients of Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology in a Tertiary Care Centre: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study

Reject Rates of Radiographic Images in Dentomaxillofacial Radiology: A Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About