European Oral Research

SUBMITINFORMATION
EnglishTürkçe

Original Research


DOI :10.26650/eor.20200079   IUP :10.26650/eor.20200079    Full Text (PDF)

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

Seval Bayrak, Emine Şebnem Kurşun Çakmak, Hakan Kamalak

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, contrast-to-noise ratio, dental materials, artifacts, image quality

PDF View

References

  • 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] google scholar
  • 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] google scholar
  • 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] google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • 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] google scholar
  • 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] google scholar
  • 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] google scholar
  • 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] google scholar
  • 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] google scholar
  • 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] google scholar
  • 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] google scholar
  • 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] google scholar
  • 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] google scholar
  • 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] google scholar
  • 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] google scholar
  • 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] google scholar
  • 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] google scholar
  • 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] google scholar
  • 20. Pauwels R, Seynaeve L, Bosmans H, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R. Technical versus diagnostic image quality in dental CBCT imaging. 2013. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Bayrak, S., Kurşun Çakmak, E.Ş., & Kamalak, H. (2020). Contrast-to-noise ratios of different dental restorative materials: An in-vitro cone beam computed tomography study. European Oral Research, 54(1), 36-41. https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20200079


AMA

Bayrak S, Kurşun Çakmak E Ş, Kamalak H. Contrast-to-noise ratios of different dental restorative materials: An in-vitro cone beam computed tomography study. European Oral Research. 2020;54(1):36-41. https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20200079


ABNT

Bayrak, S.; Kurşun Çakmak, E.Ş.; Kamalak, H. Contrast-to-noise ratios of different dental restorative materials: An in-vitro cone beam computed tomography study. European Oral Research, [Publisher Location], v. 54, n. 1, p. 36-41, 2020.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Bayrak, Seval, and Emine Şebnem Kurşun Çakmak and Hakan Kamalak. 2020. “Contrast-to-noise ratios of different dental restorative materials: An in-vitro cone beam computed tomography study.” European Oral Research 54, no. 1: 36-41. https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20200079


Chicago: Humanities Style

Bayrak, Seval, and Emine Şebnem Kurşun Çakmak and Hakan Kamalak. “Contrast-to-noise ratios of different dental restorative materials: An in-vitro cone beam computed tomography study.” European Oral Research 54, no. 1 (May. 2024): 36-41. https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20200079


Harvard: Australian Style

Bayrak, S & Kurşun Çakmak, EŞ & Kamalak, H 2020, 'Contrast-to-noise ratios of different dental restorative materials: An in-vitro cone beam computed tomography study', European Oral Research, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 36-41, viewed 2 May. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20200079


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Bayrak, S. and Kurşun Çakmak, E.Ş. and Kamalak, H. (2020) ‘Contrast-to-noise ratios of different dental restorative materials: An in-vitro cone beam computed tomography study’, European Oral Research, 54(1), pp. 36-41. https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20200079 (2 May. 2024).


MLA

Bayrak, Seval, and Emine Şebnem Kurşun Çakmak and Hakan Kamalak. “Contrast-to-noise ratios of different dental restorative materials: An in-vitro cone beam computed tomography study.” European Oral Research, vol. 54, no. 1, 2020, pp. 36-41. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20200079


Vancouver

Bayrak S, Kurşun Çakmak EŞ, Kamalak H. Contrast-to-noise ratios of different dental restorative materials: An in-vitro cone beam computed tomography study. European Oral Research [Internet]. 2 May. 2024 [cited 2 May. 2024];54(1):36-41. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20200079 doi: 10.26650/eor.20200079


ISNAD

Bayrak, Seval - Kurşun Çakmak, EmineŞebnem - Kamalak, Hakan. “Contrast-to-noise ratios of different dental restorative materials: An in-vitro cone beam computed tomography study”. European Oral Research 54/1 (May. 2024): 36-41. https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20200079



TIMELINE


Submitted28.11.2018
Accepted28.05.2019
Published Online23.01.2020

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.