الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 147 |  |  |
| | | from | 147 | | |
Abstract
Cone beam CT, which offers clear 3D images with small voxel size, has been widely used in head and neck diagnoses& especially in the field of implantology. Metal artifacts produced by dental implants might be playing a principal role in the degradation of the image quality.
The purpose of this study was to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate metallic artifact around dental implants using 5 different CBCT scanners
One implant hole was drilled in the premolar molar area in seven dry mandibles as well as a dental stone phantom. After implant insertion and before scanning, each mandible was immersed in a plastic sealed box filled with water to simulate soft tissue
The samples were then scanned by five different CBCT machines according to the protocols recommended by their manufacturers using the smallest possible voxel size and the smallest possible FOV covering the mandibles. These scanners are; I-CAT Imaging sciences International (Imaging Sciences, HatfieldPA, USA), Galileos 3D (Sirona Germany, Bensheim, Germany), 3DAccuiTomo-xyz (J. Morita, Kyoto, Japan), Scanora 3D (Soredex, Tuusula, Finland) and PlanmecaProMax 3D (planmeca , Helsinki , Finland).
CBCT DICOM datasets were imported in the Mimics® 10.01 (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) software. The artifacts produced by the 5 different CBCT machines were then evaluated qualitatively and quantitavely.
Conclusions:
Within the limitations of our study the following conclusions could be drawn:
When comparing the 5 listed CBCT machines regarding metal artifacts produced from a single implant we found that
1- It was generally clear that metal artifacts were more apparent in the phantom than in the mandibles.
2- Regarding quantitative assessment of metal artefact GALILEOS COMFORT showed the best results while ACCUITOMO XYZ showed the worst results.
3- Regarding qualitative assessment of streak artifacts I-CAT showed the best results while Scanora 3D showed the worst result.
4- Regarding the number of surfaces affected by streak artifacts the AM (apico- mesial) surface showed the lowest number of streaks while the OL (occluso-lingual) surface showed the highest number of streaks but the differences were not statistically significant.
5- Regarding qualitative assessment of cupping artifacts PROMAX 3D and GALILEOS COMFORT showed the best results while ACCUITOMO XYZ showed the worst results.
6- Regarding qualitative assessment of loss of serrations I-CAT showed the best results while Scanora 3D showed the worst results.
7- Based on our study, it can be clearly seen that some devices perform worse than others when metals are introduced in the images.