Abstract
Aim: Artifacts caused by metallic restorations may hinder the reporting of CBCT volumes. The use of impression materials in restorations could have some effect on artifacts. Our objective is to evaluate the effect of impression materials on artifact generation during the CBCT study.
Methods: Twenty-four extracted teeth filled with amalgam, composite resin, and zinc oxide eugenol with different restorations were mounted, assuming that the effect of the impression materials (alginate [AA], addition silicone [AS], and condensation [CS]) would decrease the proportion of images with artifacts from 50% to 25%. The samples were processed on a Sirona SL CBCT with 5x5cm FOV and Sidexis 4 software. A quantitative evaluation of the artifacts was performed programmatically through a script in ImageJ software comparing the coronal area with and without impression material. A qualitative evaluation was made by sending the images to 346 dentists in Latin America to
indicate in pairs of images which one had more artifacts. Differences between groups were explored with regression analysis (p=0.05).
Results: The quantitative evaluation showed that the average area was 12% higher for any impression materials than the control (p<0.05), and between impression materials were not significant. The qualitative evaluation was completed by 156 dentists (18.5 radiologists), who found that the lowest proportion of images with artifacts was in the control sample (19%), followed by silicones (AS 70%, CS 68%) and alginate (75%).
Conclusion: The use of impression materials when taking CBCT volumes does not decrease the generation of artifacts generated by teeth restoration.
Methods: Twenty-four extracted teeth filled with amalgam, composite resin, and zinc oxide eugenol with different restorations were mounted, assuming that the effect of the impression materials (alginate [AA], addition silicone [AS], and condensation [CS]) would decrease the proportion of images with artifacts from 50% to 25%. The samples were processed on a Sirona SL CBCT with 5x5cm FOV and Sidexis 4 software. A quantitative evaluation of the artifacts was performed programmatically through a script in ImageJ software comparing the coronal area with and without impression material. A qualitative evaluation was made by sending the images to 346 dentists in Latin America to
indicate in pairs of images which one had more artifacts. Differences between groups were explored with regression analysis (p=0.05).
Results: The quantitative evaluation showed that the average area was 12% higher for any impression materials than the control (p<0.05), and between impression materials were not significant. The qualitative evaluation was completed by 156 dentists (18.5 radiologists), who found that the lowest proportion of images with artifacts was in the control sample (19%), followed by silicones (AS 70%, CS 68%) and alginate (75%).
Conclusion: The use of impression materials when taking CBCT volumes does not decrease the generation of artifacts generated by teeth restoration.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages | 6 |
| Publication status | Published - 8 Jun 2022 |
| Event | 18th European Congress of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (ECDMFR) - online, Lublin, Poland Duration: 8 Jun 2022 → 10 Jun 2022 Conference number: 18 https://ecdmfrcongress2022.gridaly.com/info |
Congress
| Congress | 18th European Congress of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (ECDMFR) |
|---|---|
| Abbreviated title | ECDMFR 2018 |
| Country/Territory | Poland |
| City | Lublin |
| Period | 8/06/22 → 10/06/22 |
| Internet address |
Keywords*
- CBCT
- Radiology
- Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
- Biomaterials
- maxillofaacial radiology
Field of Science*
- 3.3 Health sciences
- 3.2 Clinical medicine
Publication Type*
- 3.4. Other publications in conference proceedings (including local)