HEAD AND NECK RADIOLOGY / ORIGINAL PAPER
Performance of different cone-beam computed tomography scan modes with and without metal artifact reduction in detection of recurrent dental caries under various restorative materials
1
Dental Materials Research Center, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental Faculty, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran
2
Student Research Committee, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran
3
Dental Materials Research Center, Health Research Institute, Faculty of Dentistry, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran
Submission date: 2024-03-13
Final revision date: 2024-05-03
Acceptance date: 2024-05-03
Publication date: 2024-06-07
Corresponding author
Farida Abesi
Dental Materials Research Center, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental Faculty, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran
Dental Materials Research Center, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental Faculty, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran
Pol J Radiol, 2024; 89: 281-291
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan modes with and without the application of a metal artifact reduction (MAR) option under 5 different restorative materials.
Material and methods:
Our research was an in vitro study with 150 caries-free premolars and molars. The teeth were randomly divided into experimental (with artificially induced caries, n = 75) and control (without caries, n = 75) groups and were prepared based on 5 types of restorative materials, including conventional composites (Filtek Z250, Gradia), flow composite, glass ionomer, and amalgam. The teeth were examined under 2 CBCT scan modes (high-resolution [HIRes] and standard) with and without MAR application. Finally, the diagnostic accuracy index values (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], sensitivity, and specificity) were calculated.
Results:
The AUC of standard scan mode with the MAR option was significantly lower than that of HIRes with MAR (p = 0.018) and without MAR option (p = 0.011) in detecting recurrent caries. Also, without MAR option, the diagnostic accuracy (AUC) of the standard mode was significantly lower than that of the HIRes (p = 0.020). Similar findings were observed for sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, diagnostic performance of standard and HIRes scan modes with and without MAR in the amalgam group was lower than that in other restorative material groups.
Conclusions:
Diagnostic performance of HIRes CBCT mode was higher than that of standard mode for recurrent caries and remained unaffected by MAR application. However, the accuracy in detecting recurrent caries was lower in the amalgam group compared with other restorative material groups.
We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan modes with and without the application of a metal artifact reduction (MAR) option under 5 different restorative materials.
Material and methods:
Our research was an in vitro study with 150 caries-free premolars and molars. The teeth were randomly divided into experimental (with artificially induced caries, n = 75) and control (without caries, n = 75) groups and were prepared based on 5 types of restorative materials, including conventional composites (Filtek Z250, Gradia), flow composite, glass ionomer, and amalgam. The teeth were examined under 2 CBCT scan modes (high-resolution [HIRes] and standard) with and without MAR application. Finally, the diagnostic accuracy index values (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], sensitivity, and specificity) were calculated.
Results:
The AUC of standard scan mode with the MAR option was significantly lower than that of HIRes with MAR (p = 0.018) and without MAR option (p = 0.011) in detecting recurrent caries. Also, without MAR option, the diagnostic accuracy (AUC) of the standard mode was significantly lower than that of the HIRes (p = 0.020). Similar findings were observed for sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, diagnostic performance of standard and HIRes scan modes with and without MAR in the amalgam group was lower than that in other restorative material groups.
Conclusions:
Diagnostic performance of HIRes CBCT mode was higher than that of standard mode for recurrent caries and remained unaffected by MAR application. However, the accuracy in detecting recurrent caries was lower in the amalgam group compared with other restorative material groups.
REFERENCES (44)
1.
Kamburoğlu K, Sönmez G, Berktaş ZS, Kurt H, Özen D. Effects of various cone-beam computed tomography settings on the detection of recurrent caries under restorations in extracted primary teeth. Imaging Sci Dent 2017; 47: 109-115.
2.
Elgezawi M, Haridy R, Abdalla MA, Heck K, Draenert M, Kaisarly D. Current strategies to control recurrent and residual caries with resin composite restorations: operator-and material-related factors. J Clin Med 2022; 11: 6591. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11216591.
3.
Abdelaziz M. Detection, diagnosis, and monitoring of early caries: the future of individualized dental care. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023; 13: 3649. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13243649.
4.
Koç C, Kamburoğlu K, Sönmez G, Yılmaz F, Gülen O, Karahan S. Ability to detect endodontic complications using three different cone beam computed tomography units with and without artefact reduction modes: an ex vivo study. Int Endod J 2019; 52: 725-736.
5.
Maret D, Vergnes JN, Peters OA, Peters C, Nasr K, Monsarrat P. Recent advances in cone-beam CT in oral medicine. Curr Med Imaging 2020; 16: 553-564.
6.
Abesi F, Golikani A. Diagnostic performance of cone-beam computed tomography for apical periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pol J Radiol 2023; 88: e597-e605. DOI: 10.5114/pjr.2023.134035.
7.
Kazimierczak W, Kędziora K, Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Kazimierczak N, Serafin Z. Noise-optimized CBCT imaging of temporomandibular joints – the impact of AI on image quality. J Clin Med 2024; 13: 1502. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13051502.
8.
Coelho-Silva F, Martins LAC, Braga DA, Zandonade E, Haiter-Neto F, Lins de-Azevedo-Vaz S. Influence of windowing and metal artefact reduction algorithms on the volumetric dimensions of five different high-density materials: a cone-beam CT study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2020; 49: 20200039. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20200039.
9.
de Freitas BN, da Motta RJG, Pauwels R, Oliveira-Santos C, Tirapelli C. Influence of metal artefact reduction on the diagnosis of contact between implant and mandibular canal in cone beam computed tomography: an ex-vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2023; 34: 741-750.
10.
Terrabuio BR, Carvalho CG, Peralta-Mamani M, da Silva Santos PS, Fischer Rubira-Bullen IR, Fischer Rubira CM. Cone-beam computed tomography artifacts in the presence of dental implants and associated factors: an integrative review. Imaging Sci Dent 2021; 51: 93-106.
11.
Cheng JG, Zhang ZL, Wang XY, Zhang ZY, Ma XC, Li G. Detection accuracy of proximal caries by phosphor plate and cone-beam computerized tomography images scanned with different resolutions. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16: 1015-1021.
12.
Cebe F, Aktan AM, Ozsevik AS, Ertugrul Ciftci M, Derya Surmelioglu H. The effects of different restorative materials on the detection of approximal caries in cone-beam computed tomography scans with and without metal artifact reduction mode. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017; 123: 392-400.
13.
Talachi F, Abesi F, Ezoji F, Mahjoub S, Ghorbani H, Bijani A. Comparison of accuracy cone-beam computed tomography and digital bitewing radiography for detection of recurrent caries under various restorative materials: in vitro study. Oral Radiol 2023; 39: 722-730.
14.
Anbiaee N, Mohassel AR, Imanimoghaddam M, Moazzami SM. A comparison of the accuracy of digital and conventional radiography in the diagnosis of recurrent caries. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010; 11: E025-32.
15.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174.
16.
Hosmer DW Jr, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Applied logistic regression: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
17.
Kamburoğlu K, Kolsuz E, Murat S, Eren H, Yüksel S, Paksoy CS. Assessment of buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant and periodontal defects using a cone beam CT system with and without the application of metal artefact reduction mode. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20130176. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20130176.
18.
Power M, Fell G, Wright M. Principles for high-quality, high-value testing. Evid Based Med 2013; 18: 5-10.
19.
Romano A, Di Spirito F, Amato A, Ferraro GA, Dipalma G, Xhajanka E, et al. Dental microstructural imaging: from conventional radiology to in vivo confocal microscopy. Appl Sci 2022; 12: 10654.
20.
Ezhov M, Gusarev M, Golitsyna M, Yates JM, Kushnerev E, Tamimi D, et al. Clinically applicable artificial intelligence system for dental diagnosis with CBCT. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 15006. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94093-9.
21.
Schüler IM, Hennig CL, Buschek R, Scherbaum R, Jacobs C, Scheithauer M, et al. Radiation exposure and frequency of dental, bitewing and occlusal radiographs in children and adolescents. J Pers Med 2023; 13: 692. DOI: 10.3390/jpm13040692.
22.
White SC, Pharoah MJ. White and Pharoah’s Oral Radiology: Principles and Interpretation. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2018.
23.
Demirturk Kocasarac H, Koenig LJ, Ustaoglu G, Lima Oliveira M, Queiroz Freitas D. CBCT image artefacts generated by implants located inside the field of view or in the exomass. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2022; 51: 20210092. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20210092.
24.
Wanderley VA, de Faria Vasconcelos K, Leite AF, Pauwels R, Shujaat S, Jacobs R, et al. Impact of the blooming artefact on dental implant dimensions in 13 cone-beam computed tomography devices. Int J Implant Dent 2021; 7: 67. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-021-00347-6.
25.
Kaasalainen T, Ekholm M, Siiskonen T, Kortesniemi M. Dental cone beam CT: an updated review. Phys Med 2021; 88: 193-217.
26.
Abesi F, Jamali AS, Zamani M. Accuracy of artificial intelligence in the detection and segmentation of oral and maxillofacial structures using cone-beam computed tomography images: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pol J Radiol 2023; 88: e256-e263. DOI: 10.5114/pjr.2023.127624.
27.
Polizzi A, Quinzi V, Ronsivalle V, Venezia P, Santonocito S, Lo Giudice A, et al. Tooth automatic segmentation from CBCT images: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 2023; 27: 3363-3378.
28.
Mazzi-Chaves JF, Camargo RV, Borges AF, Gariba Silva R, Pauwels R, Corrêa Silva-Sousa YT, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography in endodontics –– state of the art. Current Oral Health Reports 2021; 8: 9-22.
29.
Abdelkarim A. Cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Dent J (Basel) 2019; 7: 89. DOI: 10.3390/dj7030089.
30.
de Faria Vasconcelos K, Queiroz PM, Codari M, Ferreira Pinheiro Nicolielo L, Queiroz Freitas D, Jacobs R, et al. A quantitative analysis of metal artifact reduction algorithm performance in volume correction with 3 CBCT devices. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2020; 130: 328-335.
31.
Hegazy MAA, Cho MH, Cho MH, Lee SY. Metal artifact reduction in dental CBCT images using direct sinogram correction combined with metal path-length weighting. Sensors (Basel) 2023; 23: 1288. DOI: 10.3390/s23031288.
32.
Bayrak S, Orhan K, Kursun Çakmak ES, Görürgöz C, Odabaşı O, Yilmaz D, et al. Evaluation of a metal artifact reduction algorithm and an optimization filter in the estimation of peri-implant dehiscence defects by using cone beam computed tomography: an in-vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2020; 130: 209-216.
33.
Sheikhi M, Behfarnia P, Mostajabi M, Nasri N. The efficacy of metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithm in cone-beam computed tomography on the diagnostic accuracy of fenestration and dehiscence around dental implants. J Periodontol 2020; 91: 209-214.
34.
Schriber M, Yeung AWK, Suter VGA, Buser D, Leung YY, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography artefacts around dental implants with different materials influencing the detection of peri-implant bone defects. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020; 31: 595-606.
35.
Rodrigues CT, Jacobs R, Vasconcelos KF, Lambrechts P, Fisher Rubira-Bullen IR, Gaêta-Araujo H, et al. Influence of CBCT-based volumetric distortion and beam hardening artefacts on the assessment of root canal filling quality in isthmus-containing molars. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2021; 50: 20200503. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20200503.
36.
Schulze R. CBCT artefact-burden of zirconia-based as compared to titanium implants for different beam energies: an analytical approach. Sci Rep 2022; 12: 15276. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-19379-y.
37.
Kulczyk T, Dyszkiewicz-Konwińska M, Owecka M, Krzyżostaniak J, Surdacka A. The influence of amalgam fillings on the detection of approximal caries by cone beam CT: in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43: 20130342. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20130342.
38.
Matteson SR, Phillips C, Kantor ML, Leinedecker T. The effect of lesion size, restorative material, and film speed on the detection of recurrent caries. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1989; 68: 232-237.
39.
Neto JDP, Melo G, Marin C, Riet Correa Rivero E, Cabral Cruz AC, Flores-Mir C, et al. Diagnostic performance of periapical and panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography for detection of circumferential gaps simulating osseointegration failure around dental implants: a systematic review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2021; 132: e208-e222. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2021.08.012.
40.
Reis A, Mendes FM, Angnes V, Angnes G, Grande RHM, Dourado Loguercio A. Performance of methods of occlusal caries detection in permanent teeth under clinical and laboratory conditions. J Dent 2006; 34: 89-96.
41.
Sousa Melo SL, Belem MDF, Prieto LT, Pereira Machado Tabchoury C, Haiter-Neto F. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography and digital intraoral radiography performance in the detection of artificially induced recurrent caries-like lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017; 124: 306-314.
42.
Charuakkra A, Prapayasatok S, Janhom A, Pongsiriwet S, Verochana K, Mahasantipiya P. Diagnostic performance of cone-beam computed tomography on detection of mechanically-created artificial secondary caries. Imaging Sci Dent 2011; 41: 143-150.
43.
Wayer DR, Kim NY, Otto BJ, Grayev AM, Kuner AD. Unintended consequences: review of new artifacts introduced by iterative reconstruction CT metal artifact reduction in spine imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019; 40: 1973-1975.
44.
Kazimierczak W, Nowak E, Kazimierczak N, Jankowski T, Jankowska A, Serafin Z. The value of metal artifact reduction and iterative algorithms in dual energy CT angiography in patients after complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Heliyon 2023; 9: e20700. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20700.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
