Original Article| Volume 130, ISSUE 1, P116-125, July 2020

Distribution of metal artifacts arising from the exomass in small field-of-view cone beam computed tomography scans

Published:February 10, 2020DOI:


      To evaluate the distribution of metal artifacts from the exomass in small field-of-view (FOV) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans.

      Study Design

      An image phantom was scanned by using 3 CBCT units. Metal objects were positioned in the exomass, and additional CBCT scans were obtained. Mean gray values were obtained from 16 homogeneous areas and the standard deviation was calculated to quantify gray level inhomogeneity according to distinct zones of the FOV: total area and outer, inner, right, left, and mid-zones. The discrepancy between each zone and the total area was calculated to compare different CBCT units. Mean gray, gray level inhomogeneity, and discrepancy values were separately assessed by using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test (α = 0.05).


      Overall, the mean gray values were significantly lower in the inner zone, and the gray level inhomogeneity values were significantly higher in the inner and mid-zones irrespective of the presence of metal objects in the exomass. The 3 CBCT units presented significantly different discrepancy values in most conditions.


      The distribution of metal artifacts from the exomass follows the inherent gray value dispersion of CBCT images, with greater inhomogeneity in the inner zone of the FOV. This is exacerbated when metal objects are in the exomass.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


        • Abramovitch K
        • Rice DD.
        Basic principles of cone beam computed tomography.
        Dent Clin North Am. 2014; 58: 463-484
        • Scarfe W
        • Farman A.
        What is cone-beam CT, and how does it work?.
        Dent Clin North Am. 2008; 52: 707-730
        • Molteni R.
        Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013; 116: 105-119
        • Parsa A
        • Ibrahim N
        • Hassan B
        • Van der Stelt P
        • Wismeijer D
        Influence of object location in cone beam computed tomography (NewTom 5 G and 3 D Accuitomo 170) on gray value measurements at an implant site.
        Oral Radiol. 2014; 30: 153-159
        • Chang E
        • Lam E
        • Shah P
        • Azarpazhooh A
        Cone-beam computed tomography for detecting vertical root fractures in endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review.
        J Endod. 2016; 42: 177-185
        • Pauwels R
        • Jacobs R
        • Bogaerts R
        • Bosmans H
        • Panmekiate S
        Reduction of scatter-induced image noise in cone beam computed tomography: effect of field of view size and position.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2016; 121: 188-195
        • Lagravère MO
        • Carey J
        • Ben-Zvi M
        • Packota GV
        • Major PW
        Effect of object location on the density measurement and Hounsfield conversion in a NewTom 3 G cone beam computed tomography unit.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008; 37: 305-308
        • Nackaerts O
        • Maes F
        • Yan H
        • Couto Souza P
        • Pauwels R
        • Jacobs R
        Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22: 873-879
        • Farman AG
        • Scarfe WC.
        The basics of maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography.
        Semin Orthod. 2009; 15: 2-13
        • Candemil AP
        • Salmon B
        • Freitas DQ
        • Ambrosano GM
        • Haiter-Neto F
        • Oliveira ML
        Metallic materials in the exomass impair cone beam CT voxel values.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018; 2720180011
        • Candemil AP
        • Salmon B
        • Freitas DQ
        • Ambrosano GMB
        • Haiter-Neto F
        • Oliveira ML
        Are metal artefact reduction algorithms effective to correct cone beam CT artefacts arising from the exomass?.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019; 4820180290
        • Bechara BB
        • Moore WS
        • McMahan CA
        • Noujeim M
        Metal artefact reduction with cone beam CT: an in vitro study.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012; 41: 248-253
        • Bryant J A
        • Drage N A
        • Richmond S
        Study of the scan uniformity from an i-CAT cone beam computed tomography dental imaging system.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008; 37: 365-374
        • Katsumata A
        • Hirukawa A
        • Okumura S
        • et al.
        Relationship between density variability and imaging volume size in cone-beam computerized tomographic scanning of the maxillofacial region: an in vitro study.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 107: 420-425
        • Nishikawa K
        • Kousuge Y
        • Sano T
        Is application of a quantitative CT technique helpful for quantitative measurement of bone density using dental cone-beam CT?.
        Oral Radiol. 2016; 32: 9-13
        • Oliveira ML
        • Tosoni GM
        • Lindsey DH
        • Mendonza K
        • Tetradis S
        • Mallya SM
        Assessment of CT numbers in limited and medium field-of-view scans taken using Accuitomo 170 and Veraviewepocs 3 De cone-beam computed tomography scanners.
        Imaging Sci Dent. 2014; 44: 279-285
        • Fontenele RC
        • Nascimento EH
        • Vasconcelos TV
        • Noujeim M
        • Freitas DQ
        Magnitude of cone beam CT image artifacts related to zirconium and titanium implants: impact on image quality.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018; 1020180021
        • Freitas DQ
        • Fontenele RC
        • Nascimento EHL
        • Vasconcelos TV
        • Noujeim M
        Influence of acquisition parameters on the magnitude of cone beam computed tomography artifacts.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018; 4720180151
        • Kuusisto N
        • Huumonen S
        • Kotiaho A
        • Haapea M
        • Rekola J
        • Vallittu P
        Intensity of artefacts in cone beam CT examinations caused by titanium and glass fibre-reinforced composite implants.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019; 4820170471
        • Taylor C.
        Evaluation of the effects of positioning and configuration on contrast-to-noise ratio in the quality control of a 3 D Accuitomo 170 dental CBCT system.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2016; 4520150430
        • Queiroz PM
        • Santaella GM
        • da Paz TD
        • Freitas DQ
        Evaluation of a metal artefact reduction tool on different positions of a metal object in the FOV.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017; 4620160366
        • Oliveira ML
        • Freitas DQ
        • Ambrosano GM
        • Haiter-Neto F
        Influence of exposure factors on the variability of CBCT voxel values: a phantom study.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 43 (Erratum in: Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014;43:20149002)20140128
        • Pauwels R
        • Stamatakis H
        • Bosmans H
        • et al.
        Quantification of metal artefacts on cone beam computed tomography images.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24: 94-99
        • Nardi C
        • Borri C
        • Regini F
        • et al.
        Metal and motion artefacts by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dental and maxillofacial study.
        Radiol Med. 2015; 120: 618-626
        • Oenning AC
        • Jacobs R
        • Pauwels R
        • et al.
        Cone-beam CT in paediatric dentistry: DIMITRA project position statement.
        Pediatr Radiol. 2018; 48: 308-316