Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of motion artifacts in cone-beam computed tomography with three different patient positioning

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Oral Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), despite its advantages, has some drawbacks, such as artifacts and movement of the patient during scanning may lead to motion artifacts (MAs). This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the MAs in three different CBCT devices and to analyze their relationship with age, the gender of the patients, and scanning times.

Methods

This study included 360 CBCT images from three institutions scanned in standing, sitting and supine positions. MAs presence, age, gender, and scanning times were recorded. Of the patients, 129 were scanned in standing position, 131 in sitting position, and 100 in supine position.

Results

MAs were found in 6.7% of patients in total; 8%, 7.6%, and 4% in standing, sitting, and supine positions, respectively. No statistically significant relationship was observed between MAs presence and patient position. The mean age of the patients with MAs was higher than patients without, in total and in standing positions. Scanning time showed no correlation with artifact presence.

Conclusions

Patient position is not related to MAs presence. The age of the patient is a factor in movement, and has a high impact in standing position. Although insignificant, MAs were less common in supine position than sitting and standing positions. Sitting and supine positioning might reduce motion artifacts in older patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kim JH, Arita ES, Pinheiro LR, Yoshimoto M, Watanabe PCA, Cortes ARG. Computed tomographic artifacts in maxillofacial surgery. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(1):e78–e80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Salem D, Alshihri A, Arguello E, Jung RE, Mohmed HA, Friedland B. Volumetric analysis of allogenic and xenogenic bone substitutes used in maxillary sinus augmentations utilizing cone beam CT: a prospective randomized pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(4):920–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Akay G, Ozdede M, Gungor K. An evaluation of mesiodentes: a retrospective study with cone-beam computed tomography. Selcuk Dent J. 2018;5(3):203–11.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ahmad M, Jenny J, Downie M. Application of cone beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Aust Dent J. 2012;57:82–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kwon SM, Baik HS, Jung HD, Jang W, Choi YJ. Diagnosis and surgical outcomes of facial asymmetry according to the occlusal cant and menton deviation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77(6):1261–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhao L, Wei Y, Xu T, Zhang B, Hu W, Chung KH. Changes in alveolar process dimensions following extraction of molars with advanced periodontal disease: a clinical pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30(4):324–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Patel S, Durack C, Abella F, Shemesh H, Roig M, Lemberg K. Cone beam computed tomography in endodontics—a review. Int Endod J. 2015;48(1):3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Arai Y, Tammisalo E, Iwai K, Hashimoto K, Shinoda K. Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1999;28(4):245–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sukovic P. Cone beam computed tomography in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2003;6:31–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin N Am. 2008;52(4):707–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. De Cock J, Mermuys K, Goubau J, Van Petegem S, Houthoofd B, Casselman JW. Cone-beam computed tomography: a new low dose, high resolution imaging technique of the wrist, presentation of three cases with technique. Skelet Radiol. 2012;41(1):93–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee RD. Common image artifacts in cone beam CT [Internet] (2020). http://www.aadmrt.com/currents/lee_summer_08_print.htm.

  13. 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(2):32310645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology, principles and interpretation. 7th ed. St. Louis: MO Mosby; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Donaldson K, O'Connor S, Heath N. Dental cone beam CT image quality possibly reduced by patient movement. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(2):91866873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(5):265–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nardi C, Taliani GG, Castellani A, De Falco L, Selvi V, Calistri L. Repetition of examination due to motion artifacts in horizontal cone beam CT: comparison among three different kinds of head support. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2017;7(4):208–13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee R, Azevedo B, Shintaku W, Noujeim M, Nummikoski P. Patient movement in three different CBCT units [abstract]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radio Endod. 2008;105(4):e55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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(7):618–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Spin-Neto R, Matzen LH, Schropp L, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Movement characteristics in young patients and the impact on CBCT image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2016;45(4):20150426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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(5):572–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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(4):20130449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yıldızer KE. Effect of patient anxiety on image motion artefacts in CBCT. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey

    Elif Yildizer Keris

  2. Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Istanbul Bahcesehir University Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul, Turkey

    Oguzhan Demirel

  3. Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Pamukkale University Faculty of Dentistry, Kinikli Campus, Denizli, Turkey

    Melih Ozdede

Authors
  1. Elif Yildizer Keris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oguzhan Demirel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melih Ozdede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: [EYK]; methodology: [EYK, OD, MO]; formal analysis and investigation: [EYK, OD, MO]; writing—original draft preparation: [EYK, OD, MO]; writing—review and editing: [EYK, OD, MO].

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melih Ozdede.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Elif Yıldızer Keris, Oguzhan Demirel, and Melih Özdede declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human rights statement

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for inclusion in the study.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for the study was received from Pamukkale University Ethics Committee (Number: 60116787–020/39935; Date of approval: 12/06/2019). This study was performed by following the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for inclusion in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yildizer Keris, E., Demirel, O. & Ozdede, M. Evaluation of motion artifacts in cone-beam computed tomography with three different patient positioning. Oral Radiol 37, 276–281 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-020-00446-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-020-00446-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation