The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (Jan 2024)

The effects of anatomical location and distance from dental implants on the quality and quantity of metal artifacts in cone beam computed tomography scans: a cross-sectional study

  • Yalda Salari,
  • Shirin Sakhdari,
  • Ladan Hafezi,
  • Faeze Zare Bidoki,
  • Seyed Ali Mosaddad

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-024-01196-0
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 55, no. 1
pp. 1 – 12

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Artifacts in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images can cause disruptions in diagnosis and treatment. Multiple factors influence the artifacts, including the quality and technology of devices, positions, patient-related factors, device settings, and bone density. Besides, anatomical area and distance from the implant affect the artifacts. This study aimed to investigate the effects of anatomical location and distance from the implant on the quality and quantity of artifacts. Methods A total of 200 CBCT images of patients with titanium implants and prostheses in the anterior and posterior regions of the maxilla and mandible were evaluated in this study. Four areas were assessed for each implant in three apical, middle, and cervical regions with distances of 3 mm, 4 mm, and 5 mm from the implant. Besides, the impact of adjacent implants on the artifacts was investigated. An ANOVA test with post hoc Bonferroni correction was used to analyze variable differences between subgroups. Results The differences were statistically significant, except for the difference between the posterior areas of the upper and lower jaws. A comparison of different areas revealed that most artifacts were related to the anterior maxilla, followed by anterior mandibular regions. The results of covariance analysis indicated that region and location had independent effects on the amount of artifacts. Conclusions Artifacts are more frequent in the anterior region compared to the posterior site. They are also more frequent in the maxilla than the mandible and cervical areas close to the implant than the middle and apical regions.

Keywords