Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Mar;46(3):20160366.
doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20160366. Epub 2017 Feb 17.

Evaluation of a metal artefact reduction tool on different positions of a metal object in the FOV

Polyane M Queiroz  1 , Gustavo M Santaella  1 , Thais D J da Paz  1 , Deborah Q Freitas  1
Affiliations

Evaluation of a metal artefact reduction tool on different positions of a metal object in the FOV

Polyane M Queiroz et al. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017 Mar.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the action of a metal artefact reduction (MAR) tool when artefact-generator metal object is at different positions in the field of view (FOV).

Methods: A cylindrical utility wax phantom, with a metal alloy sample inside, was made. The phantom was positioned centrally and peripherally in the FOV for image acquisition, with and without the MAR tool activation. The standard deviation values (image noise levels) from areas around the metal sample and the control area were obtained. The numbers were compared by Student's t-test (α = 0.05).

Results: When the tool was activated, a significant difference of image noise was observed for central and peripheral positioning, for both control area (p = 0.0012) and metal area (p = 0.03), and a smaller level of noise was observed for images with phantoms in central positioning. A decrease in image noise with the tool activated was found only in phantoms with the metal object positioned centrally in the FOV.

Conclusions: For the MAR tool to be effective, the artefact-generator object needs to be in the central region of the FOV.

Keywords: CBCT; artefacts.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Utility wax phantom created for this study. The metal alloy sample is represented to the right, with the white dots showing its location centralized inside the phantom.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Examples of axial images obtained with different positions in the field of view (central and peripheral) and in presence and absence of the metal artefact reduction tool, for test areas (A–D) and control areas (E–H). (A/E) Central and without tool. (B/F) Central and with tool. (C/G) Peripheral and without tool. (D/H) Peripheral and with tool.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Arai Y, Tammisalo E, Iwai K, Hashimoto K, Shinoda K. Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 245–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600448 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Martini PT, Andreis IA, Tinazzi Martini P, et al. . A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 1998; 8: 1558–64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300050586 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Farman AG, Scarfe WC. The basics of maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography. Semin Orthod 2009; 15: 2–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2008.09.001 - DOI
    1. 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: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/30642039 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bechara B, Moore WS, McMahan CA, Noujeim M. Metal artefact reduction with cone beam CT: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 248–53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/80899839 - DOI - PMC - PubMed