Contrast-to-noise ratios of different dental restorative materials: An in-vitro cone beam computed tomography study

Abstract

Purpose In radiological views, strong beam hardening and streaking artifacts occur due to high-density structures and polyenergetic X-ray beams, and these lead to misdiagnosis. This study was performed in vitro to compare the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of commonly used dental restorative materials by using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images with and without artifact reduction (AR) mode. Materials and Methods A total of 108 molar teeth were restored with nine different groups of restorative materials, with each group containing 12 teeth. Teeth were placed in a dry human mandible and scanned, one by one, via Planmeca 3D ProMax (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) with and without AR mode. Images were analyzed using ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) to calculate the CNR. Results CNR was calculated to be the highest in compomer (Glassiosite) images without AR mode (mean: 3.36) and with AR mode (mean: 3.61). CNR was calculated to be the lowest in amalgam (Tytin) images without AR mode (mean: 0.21) and with AR mode (mean: 0.23). A significant difference was found between materials in terms of CNR measurements (p ≤ 0.05). CNR measurements were increased after the AR mode application (p ≤ 0.05). Conclusion AR mode was effective in reducing artifacts arising from dental materials on CBCT images, so it is necessary to use AR mode for correct diagnoses.

Keywords

• Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
• ontrast-to-noise ratio
• dental materials
• artifacts
• image quality

References

1. 1. Scarfe WC, Li Z, Aboelmaaty W, Scott SA, Farman AG. Maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: essence, elements and steps to interpretation. Aust Dent J 2012;57(Suppl 1):46-60. [CrossRef]
2. 2. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am 2008;52(4):707-30. [CrossRef]
3. 3. Pauwels R, Silkosessak O, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H, Panmekiate S. A pragmatic approach to determine the optimal kVp in cone beam CT: balancing contrast-to-noise ratio and radiation dose. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014;43(5):20140059. [CrossRef]
4. 4. Panjnoush M, Kheirandish Y, Kashani PM, Fakhar HB, Younesi F, Mallahi M. Effect of Exposure Parameters on Metal Artifacts in Cone Beam Computed Tomography. J Dent (Tehran) 2016;13(3):143-50.
5. 5. Kim MS, Kim BY, Choi HY, Choi YJ, Oh SH, Kang JH, et al. Intravenous contrast media application using cone-beam computed tomography in a rabbit model. Imaging Sci Dent 2015;45(1):31-9. [CrossRef]
6. 6. Queiroz PM, Oliveira ML, Groppo FC, Haiter-Neto F, Freitas DQ. Evaluation of metal artefact reduction in cone-beam computed tomography images of different dental materials. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22(1):419-23. [CrossRef]
7. 7. Taylor C. Evaluation of the effects of positioning and configuration on contrast-to-noise ratio in the quality control of a 3D Accuitomo 170 dental CBCT system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016;45(5):20150430. [CrossRef]
8. 8. Cebe F, Aktan AM, Ozsevik AS, Ciftci ME, Surmelioglu HD. 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(3):392-400. [CrossRef]

9. 9. Demirturk Kocasarac H, Helvacioglu Yigit D, Bechara B, Sinanoglu A, Noujeim M. Contrast-to-noise ratio with different settings in a CBCT machine in presence of different root-end filling materials: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016;45(5):20160012. [CrossRef]
10. 10. Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics 2004;24(6):1679-91. [CrossRef] 11. Wang L, D'Alpino PH, Lopes LG, Pereira JC. Mechanical properties of dental restorative materials: relative contribution of laboratory tests. J Appl Oral Sci 2003;11(3):162-7. [CrossRef]
11. 12. Bechara B, Alex McMahan C, Moore WS, Noujeim M, Teixeira FB, Geha H. Cone beam CT scans with and without artefact reduction in root fracture detection of endodontically treated teeth. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42(5):20120245. [CrossRef]
12. 13. Kuusisto N, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV, Huumonen S. Evaluation of intensity of artefacts in CBCT by radio-opacity of composite simulation models of implants in vitro. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;44(2):20120245. [CrossRef]
13. 14. Hwang JJ, Park H, Jeong HG, Han SS. Change in Image Quality According to the 3D Locations of a CBCT Phantom. PLoS One 2016;11(4):0153884. [CrossRef]
14. 15. Kalender WA, Deak P, Kellermeier M, van Straten M, Vollmar SV. Application- and patient size-dependent optimization of x-ray spectra for CT. Med Phys 2009;36(3):993-1007. [CrossRef]
15. 16. Bechara B, McMahan CA, Moore WS, Noujeim M, Geha H, Teixeira FB. Contrast-to-noise ratio difference in small field of view cone beam computed tomography machines. J Oral Sci 2012;54(3):227-32. [CrossRef]
16. 17. Bechara B, McMahan CA, Geha H, Noujeim M. Evaluation of a cone beam CT artefact reduction algorithm. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41(5):422-8. [CrossRef]
17. 18. Kamburoglu K, Kolsuz E, Murat S, Eren H, Yuksel 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(8):20130176. [CrossRef]
18. 19. Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Syriopoulos K, van der Stelt P. Assessment of metal artefact reduction around dental titanium implants in cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014;43(7):20140019. [CrossRef]
19. 20. Pauwels R, Seynaeve L, Bosmans H, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R. Technical versus diagnostic image quality in dental CBCT imaging. 2013.