Contrast-to-noise Ratios of Different Dental Restorative Materials: an In-vitro Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study

Overview

Journal Eur Oral Res

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2020 Jun 11

PMID 32518909

Citations 2

Authors

Seval Bayrak

Emine Sebnem Kursun Cakmak

Hakan Kamalak

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

Comparison of periapical radiography, panoramic radiography, and CBCT in the evaluation of trabecular bone structure using fractal analysis.

Yavuz E, Yardimci S Oral Radiol. 2024; 40(3):394-400.

PMID: 38407759 DOI: 10.1007/s11282-024-00743-9.

Assessment of marginal gaps and image quality of crowns made of two different restorative materials: An in vitro study using CBCT images.

Doriguetto P, de Almeida D, Lima C, Lopes R, Devito K J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2023; 16(4):243-250.

PMID: 37560496 PMC: 10407872. DOI: 10.34172/joddd.2022.039.

References

Kalender W, Deak P, Kellermeier M, van Straten M, Vollmar S . Application- and patient size-dependent optimization of x-ray spectra for CT. Med Phys. 2009; 36(3):993-1007. DOI: 10.1118/1.3075901. View

Bechara B, McMahan C, Moore W, Noujeim M, Teixeira F, 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. PMC: 3635776. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20120245. View

Scarfe W, Li Z, Aboelmaaty W, Scott S, Farman A . Maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: essence, elements and steps to interpretation. Aust Dent J. 2012; 57 Suppl 1:46-60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01657.x. View

Kamburoglu K, Kolsuz E, Murat S, Eren H, Yuksel S, Paksoy C . 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. PMC: 3922259. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20130176. View

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. PMC: 4170846. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140019. View

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. PMC: 5084704. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20160012. View

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. PMC: 5084703. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20150430. View

Bechara B, McMahan C, Moore W, Noujeim M, Geha H, Teixeira F . Contrast-to-noise ratio difference in small field of view cone beam computed tomography machines. J Oral Sci. 2012; 54(3):227-32. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.54.227. View

Panjnoush M, Kheirandish Y, Kashani P, Fakhar H, Younesi F, Mallahi M . Effect of Exposure Parameters on Metal Artifacts in Cone Beam Computed Tomography. J Dent (Tehran). 2017; 13(3):143-150. PMC: 5376540. View

10.

Kuusisto N, Vallittu P, Lassila L, Huumonen S . Evaluation of intensity of artefacts in CBCT by radio-opacity of composite simulation models of implants in vitro. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 44(2):20140157. PMC: 4614173. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140157. View

11.

Cebe F, Aktan A, Ozsevik A, Ciftci M, 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(3):392-400. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2016.11.008. View

12.

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. PMC: 4082271. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140059. View

13.

Wang L, DAlpino P, Lopes L, Pereira J . Mechanical properties of dental restorative materials: relative contribution of laboratory tests. J Appl Oral Sci. 2011; 11(3):162-7. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572003000300002. View

14.

Hwang J, Park H, Jeong H, Han S . Change in Image Quality According to the 3D Locations of a CBCT Phantom. PLoS One. 2016; 11(4):e0153884. PMC: 4836729. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153884. View

15.

Bechara B, McMahan C, Geha H, Noujeim M . Evaluation of a cone beam CT artefact reduction algorithm. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012; 41(5):422-8. PMC: 3520356. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/43691321. View

16.

Barrett J, Keat N . Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics. 2004; 24(6):1679-91. DOI: 10.1148/rg.246045065. View

17.

Scarfe W, Farman A . What is cone-beam CT and how does it work?. Dent Clin North Am. 2008; 52(4):707-30, v. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005. View

18.

Kim M, Kim B, Choi H, Choi Y, Oh S, Kang J . Intravenous contrast media application using cone-beam computed tomography in a rabbit model. Imaging Sci Dent. 2015; 45(1):31-9. PMC: 4362989. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2015.45.1.31. View

19.

Queiroz P, Oliveira M, Groppo F, Haiter-Neto F, Freitas D . Evaluation of metal artefact reduction in cone-beam computed tomography images of different dental materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 22(1):419-423. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2128-9. View