Lateral Position With Gantry Tilt Further Improves Computed Tomography Image Quality Reconstructed Using Single-Energy Metal Artifact Reduction Algorithm in the Oral Cavity. Issue 4 (July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Onodera, Maki; Aratani, Kazunori; Shonai, Takaharu; Ogura, Keishi; Kamo, Ken-ichi; Ogi, Kazuhiro; Kondo, Atsushi; Hatakenaka, Masamitsu
• Is Part Of: Journal of computer assisted tomography. Volume 44:Issue 4(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-07
• Subjects: artifacts -- image enhancement -- metals -- oral cavity -- patient positioning; Tomography -- Periodicals; Tomography -- Periodicals; Tomography; Periodicals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000001029
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0363-8715

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To assess the limitations of single-energy metal artifact reduction algorithm in the oral cavity and evaluate the availability of a solution by setting the patient in a lateral position (LP) with the use of a gantry tilt (GT). Methods: We analyzed 88 patients with dental metals retrospectively in study 1, and 74 patients prospectively in study 2. Patients were classified: metal I with dental metals in 1 region, metal II in 2 regions, and metal III in 3 regions. Patients underwent neck computed tomography examinations in a supine position (SP) in study 1, and 2 positions, an LP with a GT and an SP, in study 2. All images were reconstructed with this algorithm. Image quality was scored using a 4-point scale: 1 = severe artifact, 2 = moderate artifact, 3 = slight artifact, 4 = no artifact. The scores were compared between metal I, metal II, and metal III using the Mann-Whitney U test in study 1, and between an LP with a GT and an SP using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test in study 2. Results: The scores outside the dental arch were significantly higher in metal I than in metal II and metal III (3.0 ± 0.6 vs 2.3 ± 0.5 vs 2.2 ± 0.4; P < 0.0001 for metal I vs metal II and for metal I vs metal III) and significantly higher in an LP with a GT than an SP (3.2 ± 0.4 vs 2.3 ± 0.4; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Single-energy metal artifact reduction algorithm could reduce metal artifacts adequately in patients with dental metals in 1 region, but not in 2 or more regions. However, even for the latter, combination of this algorithm and an LP with a GT could further improve the image quality.