Quantitative analysis of zirconia and titanium implant artefacts in three-dimensional virtual models of multi-slice CT and cone beam CT: does scan protocol matter?

Autor: Matta RE; Department of Prosthodontics, University Hospital Erlangen of Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany., Knapp Giacaman S; Department of Prosthodontics, University Hospital Erlangen of Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany., Wiesmueller M; Institute of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen of Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany., Lutz R; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen of Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany., Uder M; Institute of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen of Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany., Wichmann M; Department of Prosthodontics, University Hospital Erlangen of Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany., Seidel A; Department of Prosthodontics, University Hospital Erlangen of Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Dento maxillo facial radiology [Dentomaxillofac Radiol] 2023 Nov; Vol. 52 (8), pp. 20230275. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Oct 23.
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20230275
Abstrakt: Objectives: Artefacts from dental implants in three-dimensional (3D) imaging may lead to incorrect representation of anatomical dimensions and impede virtual planning in navigated implantology. The aim of this study was quantitative assessment of artefacts in 3D STL models from cone beam CT (CBCT) and multislice CT (MSCT) using different scanning protocols and titanium-zirconium (Ti-Zr) and zirconium (ZrO 2 ) implant materials.
Methods: Three ZrO 2 and three Ti-Zr implants were respectively placed in the mandibles of two fresh human specimens. Before (baseline) and after implant placement, 3D digital imaging scans were performed (10 repetitions per timepoint: voxel size 0.2 mm³ and 0.3 mm³ for CBCT; 80 and 140 kV in MSCT). DICOM data were converted into 3D STL models and evaluated in computer-aided design software. After precise merging of the baseline and post-op models, the surface deviation was calculated, representing the extent of artefacts in the 3D models.
Results: Compared with baseline, ZrO 2 emitted 36.5-37.3% (±0.6-0.8) artefacts in the CBCT and 39.2-50.2% (±0.5-1.2) in the MSCT models. Ti-Zr implants produced 4.1-7.1% (±0.3-3.0) artefacts in CBCT and 5.4-15.7% (±0.5-1.3) in MSCT. Significantly more artefacts were found in the MSCT vs CBCT models for both implant materials ( p < 0.05). Significantly fewer artefacts were visible in the 3D models from scans with higher kilovolts in MSCT and smaller voxel size in CBCT.
Conclusions: Among the four applied protocols, the lowest artefact proportion of ZrO 2 and Ti-Zr implants in STL models was observed with CBCT and the 0.3 mm³ voxel size.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: