Advanced search
1 file | 1.47 MB

Analysis of metal artifact reduction tools for dental hardware in CT scans of the oral cavity: kVp, iterative reconstruction, dual-energy CT, metal artifact reduction software: does it make a difference?

(2015) NEURORADIOLOGY. 57(8). p.841-849
Author
Organization
Abstract
Metal artifacts may negatively affect radiologic assessment in the oral cavity. The aim of this study was to evaluate different metal artifact reduction techniques for metal artifacts induced by dental hardware in CT scans of the oral cavity. Clinical image quality was assessed using a Thiel-embalmed cadaver. A Catphan phantom and a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) phantom were used to evaluate physical-technical image quality parameters such as artifact area, artifact index (AI), and contrast detail (IQF(inv)). Metal cylinders were inserted in each phantom to create metal artifacts. CT images of both phantoms and the Thiel-embalmed cadaver were acquired on a multislice CT scanner using 80, 100, 120, and 140 kVp; model-based iterative reconstruction (Veo); and synthesized monochromatic keV images with and without metal artifact reduction software (MARs). Four radiologists assessed the clinical image quality, using an image criteria score (ICS). Significant influence of increasing kVp and the use of Veo was found on clinical image quality (p = 0.007 and p = 0.014, respectively). Application of MARs resulted in a smaller artifact area (p < 0.05). However, MARs reconstructed images resulted in lower ICS. Of all investigated techniques, Veo shows to be most promising, with a significant improvement of both the clinical and physical-technical image quality without adversely affecting contrast detail. MARs reconstruction in CT images of the oral cavity to reduce dental hardware metallic artifacts is not sufficient and may even adversely influence the image quality.
Keywords
Human cadaver study, Metal artifact reduction tools, Image quality, Head and neck CT, Image criteria score, COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY, SPECTRAL CT, SPINAL-CORD, VISIBILITY, PLACEMENT, AGREEMENT, IMPLANTS, DEVICES, VOLUME, TUMOR

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 1.47 MB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

Chicago
De Crop, An, Jan Casselman, Tom Van Hoof, Melissa Dierens, Elke Vereecke, Nicolas Bossu, Jaime Pamplona, Katharina D’Herde, Hubert Thierens, and Klaus Bacher. 2015. “Analysis of Metal Artifact Reduction Tools for Dental Hardware in CT Scans of the Oral Cavity: kVp, Iterative Reconstruction, Dual-energy CT, Metal Artifact Reduction Software: Does It Make a Difference?” Neuroradiology 57 (8): 841–849.
APA
De Crop, A., Casselman, J., Van Hoof, T., Dierens, M., Vereecke, E., Bossu, N., Pamplona, J., et al. (2015). Analysis of metal artifact reduction tools for dental hardware in CT scans of the oral cavity: kVp, iterative reconstruction, dual-energy CT, metal artifact reduction software: does it make a difference? NEURORADIOLOGY, 57(8), 841–849.
Vancouver
1.
De Crop A, Casselman J, Van Hoof T, Dierens M, Vereecke E, Bossu N, et al. Analysis of metal artifact reduction tools for dental hardware in CT scans of the oral cavity: kVp, iterative reconstruction, dual-energy CT, metal artifact reduction software: does it make a difference? NEURORADIOLOGY. 2015;57(8):841–9.
MLA
De Crop, An et al. “Analysis of Metal Artifact Reduction Tools for Dental Hardware in CT Scans of the Oral Cavity: kVp, Iterative Reconstruction, Dual-energy CT, Metal Artifact Reduction Software: Does It Make a Difference?” NEURORADIOLOGY 57.8 (2015): 841–849. Print.
@article{6962363,
  abstract     = {Metal artifacts may negatively affect radiologic assessment in the oral cavity. The aim of this study was to evaluate different metal artifact reduction techniques for metal artifacts induced by dental hardware in CT scans of the oral cavity. 
Clinical image quality was assessed using a Thiel-embalmed cadaver. A Catphan phantom and a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) phantom were used to evaluate physical-technical image quality parameters such as artifact area, artifact index (AI), and contrast detail (IQF(inv)). Metal cylinders were inserted in each phantom to create metal artifacts. CT images of both phantoms and the Thiel-embalmed cadaver were acquired on a multislice CT scanner using 80, 100, 120, and 140 kVp; model-based iterative reconstruction (Veo); and synthesized monochromatic keV images with and without metal artifact reduction software (MARs). Four radiologists assessed the clinical image quality, using an image criteria score (ICS). 
Significant influence of increasing kVp and the use of Veo was found on clinical image quality (p = 0.007 and p = 0.014, respectively). Application of MARs resulted in a smaller artifact area (p < 0.05). However, MARs reconstructed images resulted in lower ICS. 
Of all investigated techniques, Veo shows to be most promising, with a significant improvement of both the clinical and physical-technical image quality without adversely affecting contrast detail. MARs reconstruction in CT images of the oral cavity to reduce dental hardware metallic artifacts is not sufficient and may even adversely influence the image quality.},
  author       = {De Crop, An and Casselman, Jan and Van Hoof, Tom and Dierens, Melissa and Vereecke, Elke and Bossu, Nicolas and Pamplona, Jaime and D'Herde, Katharina and Thierens, Hubert and Bacher, Klaus},
  issn         = {0028-3940},
  journal      = {NEURORADIOLOGY},
  keywords     = {Human cadaver study,Metal artifact reduction tools,Image quality,Head and neck CT,Image criteria score,COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY,SPECTRAL CT,SPINAL-CORD,VISIBILITY,PLACEMENT,AGREEMENT,IMPLANTS,DEVICES,VOLUME,TUMOR},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {8},
  pages        = {841--849},
  title        = {Analysis of metal artifact reduction tools for dental hardware in CT scans of the oral cavity: kVp, iterative reconstruction, dual-energy CT, metal artifact reduction software: does it make a difference?},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-015-1537-1},
  volume       = {57},
  year         = {2015},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: