This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Draenert, F. Articles by Mueller-Lisse, U. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Draenert, F. Articles by Mueller-Lisse, U.

Beam hardening artefacts occur in dental implant scans with the NewTom^® cone beam CT but not with the dental 4-row multidetector CT

¹ Clinic for Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Munich, Lindwurmstrasse 2a, 80336 Munich, Germany; ² Department of Clinical Radiology, University of Munich, Marchioninistrasse 15, 81366 Munich, Germany

*Correspondence to: FG Draenert, Clinic for Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, University of Munich, Study group Dr Draenert, Kübachstr. 10, 81545 Munich, Germany; Email: draenert{at}draenert.net

Received 9 February 2006; revised 1 June 2006; accepted 27 June 2006

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine beam hardening artefacts of the NewTom^® 9000 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) device compared with the Philips MX 8000 (4-row multidetector CT (MDCT)).

Methods: We modified a SawBone^® skull to become a standardized model for our study. The skull was used for scans with the NewTom^® 9000 CBCT device and a standard dental multi-detector CT (MDCT) at a comparable reconstruction resolution with a standard Straumann ITI 4.1 mm implant in four implant positions in the maxilla (first permanent premolar in the right maxilla region, second permanent molar in the right maxilla region, first permanent premolar in the left maxilla region and second permanent molar in the left maxilla region). Results were compared with construction data of the dental implant. An image quality assessment of the images from both devices was performed with four experienced physicians and statistically analysed with the two-tailed Wilcoxon test.

Results: Scans with the NewTom^® 9000 CBCT showed strong beam hardening artefacts in the form of a radiation beam shadow in all reconstructions compared with the MDCT. These imaging artefacts became stronger with greater distance from the centre of the scanned volume. These differences in the imaging quality were proved as significant in a quality evaluation by four experienced physicians (P<0.05).

Conclusions: Visual spatial resolution of the NewTom^® 9000 CBCT was less accurate than the Philips^® MX 8000 MDCT in the imaging of metallic dental implants.

Keywords: computed tomography (CT);; dental implant;; beam hardening artefact