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
. 2020;28(S1):273-287.
doi: 10.3233/THC-209028.

Comparison of quantitative measurements of four manufacturer's metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging with a self-made acrylic phantom

Ryan Chou  1 , Hung-Yi Chi  2 , Yi-Hung Lin  3 , Liu-Kuo Ying  4 , Yu-Ju Chao  5 , Cheng-Hsun Lin  1
Affiliations

Comparison of quantitative measurements of four manufacturer's metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging with a self-made acrylic phantom

Ryan Chou et al. Technol Health Care. 2020.

Abstract

Background: Metal artifact reduction (MAR) techniques can improve metal artifacts of computed tomography (CT) images.

Objective: This work focused on conducting a quantitative analysis to compare the effectiveness of four commercial MAR techniques on three types of metal implants (hip implant, spinal implant, and dental filling) with a self-made acrylic phantom.

Methods: A cylindrical phantom was made from acrylic with a groove in the middle, and then three types of metal implants were placed in the groove. The phantom was scanned by four CT scanners and four commercialized MAR techniques were used to analyze the images. The techniques used were single-energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR, Canon), smart metal artifact reduction software (Smart-MAR, GE), iterative metal artifact reduction (IMAR, Siemens), and metal artifact reduction for orthopedic implants (OMAR, Philips). Quantitative analysis methods included objective and subjective analysis.

Results: The expected value of SEMAR, Smart-MAR, IMAR, and OMAR were 36.6, 37.8, 5.0, and 2.3, respectively. SEMAR and Smart-MAR achieved optimal results.

Conclusion: This study successfully evaluated the effects of four commercial MAR techniques on three types of metal implants in a phantom. All MAR techniques effectively reduced metal artifacts, but the effect was not significant with dental fillings due to high-density material.

Keywords: Computed tomography; metal artifact reduction; quantitative analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None to report.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Customized acrylic phantom and scanned images. a. A cylindrical phantom with a rectangular groove in the side of the phantom. b. The phantom with metal implant is placed on the platform of a CT scanner. c. Scout image of hip implant. d. Scout image of spinal implant and dental filling.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Measurement of metal volume and fraction of bad pixel area (FBPA). a. Volume of hip implant in red region. b. Measurement of fraction of bad pixel area (FBPA) of hip implant in a rectangular area of 10000 mm2.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
CT images of hip implants. a. Image without SEMAR; b. with SEMAR. c. Image without Smart-MAR; d. with Smart-MAR. e. Image without IMAR; f. with IMAR. g. Image without OMAR; h. with OMAR.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
CT images of spinal implants. a. Image without SEMAR; b. with SEMAR. c. Image without Smart-MAR; d. with Smart-MAR. e. Image without IMAR; f. with IMAR. g. Image without OMAR; h. with OMAR.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
CT images of dental filling. a. Image without SEMAR; b. with SEMAR. c. Image without Smart-MAR; d. with Smart-MAR. e. Image without IMAR; f. with IMAR. g. Image without OMAR; h. with OMAR.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Measurement results of fraction of bad pixel area (FBPA) of three metal implants. Hip implant is divided into two parts; head and body.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
Images of artifacts caused by MAR. a. Image of hip implant with artifact caused by Smart-MAR (red arrow). b. Image of spinal implant with artifact caused by Smart-MAR (red arrow). c. Image of dental filling with artifact caused by Smart-MAR (red arrow). d. Image of dental filling with artifact caused by IMAR (red arrow).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Man BD, Nuyts J, Dupont P, Marchal G, Suetens P. Metal streak artifacts in X-ray computed tomography: A simulation study. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 1999; 46: 691–6. doi: 10.1109/23.775600. - DOI
    1. Robertson DD, Weiss PJ, Fishman EK, Magid D, Walker PS. Evaluation of CT techniques for reducing artifacts in the presence of metallic orthopedic implants. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 1988; 12: 236–41. doi: 10.1097/00004728-198803000-00012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Omar G, Abdelsalam Z, Hamed W. Quantitative analysis of metallic artifacts caused by dental metallic restorations: Comparison between four CBCT scanners. Future Dental Journal 2016; 2: 15–21. doi: 10.1016/j.fdj.2016.04.001. - DOI
    1. Enomoto Y, Yamauchi K, Asano T, Otani K, Iwama T. Effect of metal artifact reduction software on image quality of C-arm cone-beam computed tomography during intracranial aneurysm treatment. Interventional Neuroradiology 2018; 24: 303–8. doi: 10.1177/1591019917754039. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gjesteby L, Man BD, Jin Y, Paganetti H, Verburg J, Giantsoudi D, et al. Metal artifact reduction in CT: Where are we after four decades? IEEE Access 2016; 4: 5826–49. doi: 10.1109/access.2016.2608621. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources