O objetivo nesse estudo foi avaliar o efeito da ferramenta de redução de artefato (FRA) na expressão de artefatos em diferentes regiões de um dente restaurado com diferentes tipos de pinos metálicos. Foram usados alvéolos (regiões anterior e posterior) de uma mandíbula e um dente unirradicular. Imagens de tomografia computadorizada de feixe cônico do dente sem pino metálico intracanal e com pinos de cobalto-cromo (Co-Cr), níquel-cromo (Ni-Cr) ou prata-paládio (Ag-Pd) foram individualmente obtidas, com 2 condições de FRA: desativada e ativada. Em uma reconstrução axial, linhas de interesse (LOIs) foram definidas ao redor do canal: 4 em direções oblíquas (mésio-vestibular, disto-vestibular, mésio-lingual e disto-lingual) e 4 em direções ortogonais (mesial, distal, vestibular e lingual). A expressão dos artefatos de endurecimento do feixe foi determinada pelo cálculo da diferença na média dos valores de cinza (DMVC) entre os grupos experimental e controle para cada LOI. Não houve diferença significativa nos valores de DMVC entre as condições “sem FRA” e “com FRA” para nenhuma das LOIs, nem na região anterior nem na região posterior da mandíbula (p>0,05), para os grupos Ni-Cr e Co-Cr. Para o Ag-Pd, diferenças significativas nos valores de DMVC foram observadas entre “sem FRA” e “com FRA” para a maioria das LOIs (p<0,05), principalmente nas direções oblíquas na região anterior, e na direção mesio-distal na região posterior. A FRA atuou principalmente em artefatos hipodensos (DMVC negativos). A eficácia da FRA disponível no aparelho de TCFC OP300 variou de acordo com o material do pino testado. Ela foi efetiva na redução da expressão de artefatos originados por pinos de Ag-Pd, principalmente nas regiões do dente afetadas por artefatos hipodensos, independentemente da região mandibular.
Article • Braz. Dent. J. 33
(1)
• Jan-Feb 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202204222 linkcopiar
The metal post material influences the performance of artefact reduction algorithms in CBCT images
Autoria
person Amanda Farias-Gomes
school Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, BrazilUniversity of CampinasBrazilPiracicaba, SP, Brazil Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
person Rocharles Cavalcante Fontenele
school Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, BrazilUniversity of CampinasBrazilPiracicaba, SP, Brazil Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
person Lucas P. Lopes Rosado
school Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, BrazilUniversity of CampinasBrazilPiracicaba, SP, Brazil Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
person Frederico Sampaio Neves
school Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, BrazilUniversity of CampinasBrazilPiracicaba, SP, Brazil Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazilschool Department of Propedeutics and Integrated Clinic, Division of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, BA, Brazil.Federal University of BahiaBrazilSalvador, BA, Brazil Department of Propedeutics and Integrated Clinic, Division of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, BA, Brazil.
person Deborah Queiroz Freitas
school Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, BrazilUniversity of CampinasBrazilPiracicaba, SP, Brazil Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
Correspondence: Amanda Farias Gomes, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Campinas. Piracicaba Dental School, Department of Oral Diagnosis. Av. Limeira, 901, Zip Code 13414-903, Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Phone: +55 19 21065227. E-mail:
aamandafg@outlook.com
aamandafg@outlook.com
SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS
Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, BrazilUniversity of CampinasBrazilPiracicaba, SP, Brazil Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
Department of Propedeutics and Integrated Clinic, Division of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, BA, Brazil.Federal University of BahiaBrazilSalvador, BA, Brazil Department of Propedeutics and Integrated Clinic, Division of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, BA, Brazil.
Figuras | Tabelas
imageFigure 1 Cropped CBCT reconstructions (axial view) of each metal post (nickel-chromium, silver-palladium, and cobalt-chromium posts) tested, according to the MAR mode (with or without activation) and mandibular region. open_in_new

imageFigure 2. Schematic representation of the objective analysis according to the region of the mandible (anterior or posterior). (A-D) First, for each CBCT scan, the axial reconstruction at the middle level of the root was selected. Two lines were determined: one line crossing the center of the root canal, following the mandible’s long axis, and a line perpendicular to the first one. (B-E) At the intersection of the previously determined lines, two bisector lines (45º) were drawn. Eight LOIs (1.3mm-length, each) were set on the perpendicular, parallel and bisector lines: four LOIs were established in the orthogonal orientations (buccal, lingual, mesial and distal regions of the root), and four LOIs were established in the oblique directions (mesiobuccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual and distolingual regions of the root). LOIs, Lines of interest. open_in_new

table_chartTable 1
Difference of the mean of gray values (DMGV) between the test (metal posts) and control (without metal post) groups according to the post material, mandibular region, artefact direction, and metal artefact reduction (MAR) condition.
| Direction | Mean of DMGV (Standard deviation) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ni-Cr | Ag-Pd | Co-Cr | |||||
| Without MAR | With MAR | Without MAR | With MAR | Without MAR | With MAR | ||
| Anterior region | Buccal | 3.04 (3.65) | 2.72 (3.53) | 9.30 (2.63) | 11.12 (1.94) | 26.48 (30.10) | 12.80 (0.12)* |
| Lingual | 15.51 (1.37) | 13.22 (0.92) | 17.23 (2.17) | 4.55 (3.99)* | 9.26 (1.17) | 7.23 (1.11) | |
| Mesial | 44.57 (5.46) | 40.01 (4.99) | 55.47 (4.44) | 55.97 (1.25) | 44.82 (0.50) | 38.96 (1.91) | |
| Distal | 64.88 (6.79) | 59.66 (6.87) | 74.85 (2.88) | 73.89 (2.84) | 70.05 (1.83) | 65.16 (1.64) | |
| Mesiobuccal | -19.37 (5.11) | -15.44 (4.34) | -27.92 (2.06) | 1.36 (3.40)* | 11.88 (1.90) | 13.82 (1.97) | |
| Distobuccal | -29.23 (2.96) | -17.59 (1.23) | -32.43 (3.87) | -0.49 (2.30)* | -23.26 (0.26) | -8.15 (2.05)* | |
| Mesiolingual | -33.36 (0.43) | -26.76 (2.59) | -40.64 (2.55) | -24.00 (3.36)* | -30.49 (1.49) | -24.14 (2.91) | |
| Distolingual | -11.83 (4.12) | -1.00 (2.75) | -40.67 (2.62) | -13.34 (6.22)* | -15.41 (1.68) | -12.61 (1.91) | |
| Posterior region | Buccal | 13.94 (2.42) | 18.39 (2.58) | 32.00 (1.98) | 36.80 (1.18) | 20.78 (2.72) | 25.45 (2.46) |
| Lingual | 26.48 (1.01) | 26.30 (1.03) | 51.26 (2.58) | 46.94 (1.60) | 26.08 (2.32) | 25.78 (1.36) | |
| Mesial | -16.54 (2.25) | -7.32 (2.08)* | -28.54 (3.46) | -17.15 (3.67)* | -18.67 (1.31) | -12.04 (1.25) | |
| Distal | -4.05 (1.92) | -0.35 (1.56) | -18.35 (2.98) | -4.73 (2.91)* | -3.07 (1.59) | 2.19 (0.78) | |
| Mesiobuccal | -5.19 (5.77) | -0.89 (4.29) | -18.90 (5.66) | -10.37 (3.05)* | -8.87 (4.08) | -5.99 (3.69) | |
| Distobuccal | 23.12 (2.80) | 22.37 (2.21) | 32.79 (2.30) | 31.96 (2.65) | 18.67 (1.02) | 18.32 (0.75) | |
| Mesiolingual | 38.27 (1.94) | 37.53 (1.57) | 43.62 (4.45) | 40.54 (4.37) | 30.72 (2.92) | 31.80 (2.35) | |
| Distolingual | -6.07 (3.05) | -1.40 (3.18) | -7.55 (3.29) | 3.52 (4.38)* | -1.57 (2.59) | 2.76 (2.41) | |
-
* Significantly differed from “without MAR” within the same post material, direction, and mandibular region evaluated (p<0.05).
Como citar
location_on
Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto
Av. do Café, S/N, 14040-904 Ribeirão Preto SP Brasil, Tel.: (55 16) 3602-3982, Fax: (55 16) 3633-0999 -
Ribeirão Preto -
SP -
Brazil
E-mail: bdj@forp.usp.br
E-mail: bdj@forp.usp.br
rss_feed
Acompañe los números de esta revista en su lector de RSS
Versão para download de PDF
Artículos relacionados
Lista de links para artigos relacionados. Os links abrem em nova aba.
Versões e tradução automática
Escolha a versão original do texto ou utilize um serviço de tradução automática.
Versão original do texto
Como citar
Escolha um formato para exportar ou selecione um estilo de citação. O conteúdo abaixo pode ser atualizado após a seleção.
Thumbnail
Thumbnail