Movement characteristics in young patients and the impact on CBCT image quality

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 45, Issue 4, 2016, Pages

  Spin Neto, Rubens ^a   Matzen, Louise H ^a   Schropp, Lars ^a   Gotfredsen, Erik ^a   Wenzel, Ann ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Cone beam CT; Image quality; Motion artefacts; Patient movement

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTIFACT; CANINE TOOTH; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CHILD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; HEAD; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MALE; MOLAR TOOTH; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); OBSERVER VARIATION; PHYSIOLOGY; STANDARDS; TIME FACTOR; TOOTH DISEASE; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY; VIDEORECORDING; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTIFACTS; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CHILD; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; CUSPID; FEMALE; HEAD; HUMANS; MALE; MOLAR, THIRD; MOVEMENT; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL; TIME FACTORS; TOOTH, IMPACTED; VIDEO RECORDING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84989927072     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20150426     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson DB, et al. Effective dose of dental CBCTa meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 44: 20140197. doi: Http://dx. doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140197
2. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 267-71. doi: Http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028
3. Pauwels R, Theodorakou C, Walker A, Bosmans H, Jacobs R, Horner K, et al. Dose distribution for dental cone beam CT and its implication for defining a dose index. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 583-93. doi: Http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/20920453
4. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2012; 380: 499-505. doi: Http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60815-0
5. Strauss KJ, Goske MJ. Estimated pediatric radiation dose during CT. Pediatr Radiol 2011; 41: 472-82. doi: Http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s00247-011-2179-z
6. SEDENTEXCT Project. Radiation protection no 172: Cone Beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Luxembourg: European Commission Directorate-General for Energy; 2012
7. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: A review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 265-73. doi: Http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/ dmfr/30642039
8. Brüllmann D, Schulze RK. Spatial resolution in CBCT machines for dental/maxillofacial applications-what do we know today?. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140204. doi: Http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1259/dmfr.20140204
9. Casselman JW, Gieraerts K, Volders D, Delanote J, Mermuys K, De Foer B, et al. Cone beam CT: non-dental applications. JBRBTR 2013; 96: 333-53
10. Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 1: Physical principles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30: 1088-95. doi: Http://dx.doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1653
11. Hanzelka T, Dusek J, Ocasek F, Kucera J, Sedy J, Benes J, et al. Movement of the patient and the cone beam computed tomography scanner: Objectives and possible solutions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013; 116: 769-73. doi: Http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2013.08.010
12. Hanzelka T, Foltán R, Horká E, Sedý J. Reduction of the negative influence of patient motion on quality of CBCT scan. Med Hypotheses 2010; 75: 610-2. doi: Http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy. 2010.07.046
13. Donaldson K, O'Connor S, Heath N. Dental cone beam CT image quality possibly reduced by patient movement. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 91866873. doi: Http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1259/dmfr/91866873
14. Nardi C, Borri C, Regini F, Calistri L, Castellani A, Lorini C, et al. Metal and motion artifacts by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dental and maxillofacial study. Radiol Med 2015; 120: 618-26. doi: Http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11547-015- 0496-2
15. Spin-Neto R, Mudrak J, Matzen LH, Christensen J, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Cone beam CT image artefacts related to head motion simulated by a robot skull: Visual characteristics and impact on image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 32310645. doi: Http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/32310645
16. Schulze RK, Michel M, Schwanecke U. Automated detection of patient movement during a CBCT scan based on the projection data. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015; 119: 468-72. doi: Http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2014.12.008
17. Spin-Neto R, Matzen LH, Schropp L, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Factors affecting patient movement and re-exposure in cone beam computed tomography examination. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015; 119: 572-8. doi: Http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.oooo.2015.01.011
18. Spin-Neto R, Matzen LH, Schropp L, Liedke GS, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Radiographic observers' ability to recognize patient movement during cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43: 20130449. doi: Http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130449
19. Kim DG. Can dental cone beam computed tomography assess bone mineral density?. J Bone Metab 2014; 21: 117-26. doi: Http:// dx.doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2014.21.2.117
20. Neller H, Geibel MA. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography scans with and without simulation of head motion. [In German.] Int J Comput Dent 2012; 15: 287-96.