Ex Vivo Quantitative Evaluation of Beam Hardening Artifacts at Various Implant Locations in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Using Metal Artifact Reduction and Noise Reduction Techniques
DIAGNOSTICS, cilt.15, sa.24, 2025 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 15 Sayı: 24
- Basım Tarihi: 2025
- Doi Numarası: 10.3390/diagnostics15243201
- Dergi Adı: DIAGNOSTICS
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, EMBASE, Directory of Open Access Journals
- Gazi Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Purposes: Beam hardening artifacts caused by dental implants remain one of the most significant limitations of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), often compromising the evaluation of peri-implant bone and potentially masking critical diagnostic findings. Although metal artifact reduction (MAR) and noise-optimization filters such as the Adaptive Image Noise Optimizer (AINO) are widely available in commercial CBCT systems, their effectiveness varies depending on implant configuration and scanning parameters. A clearer understanding of how implant positioning influences artifact severity-together with how MAR and AINO perform under different conditions-is essential for improving diagnostic reliability. Materials and Methods: A fresh frozen cadaver head, with dental implants inserted using two configurations (C1 and C2), was scanned using different scan parameters, with and without metal artifact reduction and image optimization filters. The percentages of gray value alteration due to artifacts were evaluated, using registered pre-implant scans as a control. Regions of interest were defined by an experienced researcher. For the two implant conditions, ROIs were placed as follows: C1-lingual, buccal and mesial to the mesial implant; lingual, buccal and distal to the distal implant; and an additional ROI between the implants (n = 7); C2-lingual, buccal, mesial and distal to each implant (n = 8). For each ROI, the mean gray value was measured in five consecutive axial slices, and rescaled according to calibration points in air and soft tissue. Results: Significant differences were found in gray values across configurations and scan modes. In the C2 configuration, combined MAR and AINO restored gray values in certain ROIs from 1.227 (OFF) to 1.223 (MAR+AINO), closely matching the control (1.227). In contrast, C1 showed limited improvement; for example, buccal ROI gray values decreased from 3.978 (OFF) to 3.323 (AINO) compared to the control (3.273), with no significant benefit from additional MAR. Conclusion: Artifacts from implants can be significantly affected by their (relative) position and the use of MAR and AINO.