Comparison of artifact values of prosthodontic materials with 2 different cone beam computed tomography devices

Abstract

Statement of problem. Prosthodontic materials may cause unexpected artifacts in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, but studies quantifying these artifacts are sparse. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the artifact expression of fixed prosthodontic materials with different CBCT devices. Material and methods. Ten prosthodontic materials (Co-Cr-Mo alloy, interim acrylic resin, polyetheretherketone, feldspathic ceramic, lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic, zircon core, and 3 monolithic zirconias) were scanned with 2 CBCT devices. The materials were placed in polymethyl methacrylate resin to simulate clinical conditions. To assess the impact of the devices on artifacts, the gray values of 8 areas in each material image were analyzed. The data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests (α=.05). Results. Statistically significant differences were found in the artifact expression of the materials (P<.001) and between CBCT devices (P<.001). Conclusions. The artifact expression of polymeric and ceramic materials in CBCT images was less than that of other materials. The milliampere-second (mAs) value of CBCT devices had a significant impact on the artifact level.

Statement of problem. Prosthodontic materials may cause unexpected artifacts in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, but studies quantifying these artifacts are sparse. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the artifact expression of fixed prosthodontic materials with different CBCT devices. Material and methods. Ten prosthodontic materials (Co-Cr-Mo alloy, interim acrylic resin, polyetheretherketone, feldspathic ceramic, lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic, zircon core, and 3 monolithic zirconias) were scanned with 2 CBCT devices. The materials were placed in polymethyl methacrylate resin to simulate clinical conditions. To assess the impact of the devices on artifacts, the gray values of 8 areas in each material image were analyzed. The data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests (α=.05). Results. Statistically significant differences were found in the artifact expression of the materials (P<.001) and between CBCT devices (P<.001). Conclusions. The artifact expression of polymeric and ceramic materials in CBCT images was less than that of other materials. The milliampere-second (mAs) value of CBCT devices had a significant impact on the artifact level.