Diagnostic Value of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction Combined with a Metal Artifact Reduction Algorithm during CT of the Oral Cavity

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Goerres GW,
   2. Hany TF,
   3. Kamel E, et al

   . Head and neck imaging with PET and PET/CT: artefacts from dental metallic implants. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:367–70 doi:10.1007/s00259-001-0721-1 pmid:12002712

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Barrett JF,
   2. Keat N

   . Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics 2004;24:1679–91 doi:10.1148/rg.246045065 pmid:15537976

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Ravishankar S,
   2. Ye JC,
   3. Fessler JA

   . Image reconstruction: from sparsity to data-adaptive methods and machine learning. Proc IEEE Inst Electr Electron Eng 2020;108:86–109 doi:10.1109/JPROC.2019.2936204 pmid:32095024

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Willemink MJ,
   2. Noel PB

   . The evolution of image reconstruction for CT: from filtered back projection to artificial intelligence. Eur Radiol 2019;29:2185–95 doi:10.1007/s00330-018-5810-7 pmid:30377791

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Herman GT

   . Fundamentals of computerized tomography: image reconstruction from projections. Springer-Verlag: London, 2009 doi:10.1007/978-1-84628-723-7
6. 6.↵
   1. Singh S,
   2. Kalra MK,
   3. Hsieh J, et al

   . Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 2010;257:373–83 doi:10.1148/radiol.10092212 pmid:20829535

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   1. Gervaise A,
   2. Osemont B,
   3. Lecocq S, et al

   . CT image quality improvement using adaptive iterative dose reduction with wide-volume acquisition on 320-detector CT. Eur Radiol 2012;22:295–301 doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2271-7 pmid:21927791

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Martinsen ACT,
   2. Sæther HK,
   3. Hol PK, et al

   . Iterative reconstruction reduces abdominal CT dose. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:1483–87 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.04.021 pmid:21543174

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Yu Z,
   2. Thibault JB,
   3. Bouman CA, et al

   . Fast model-based X-ray CT reconstruction using spatially nonhomogeneous ICD optimization. IEEE Trans Image Process 2011;20:161–75 doi:10.1109/TIP.2010.2058811 pmid:20643609

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Fleischmann D,
    2. Boas FE

    . Computed tomograph: old ideas and new technology. Eur Radiol 2011;21:510–17 doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2056-z pmid:21249371

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Chang W,
    2. Lee JM,
    3. Lee K, et al

    . Assessment of a model-based, iterative reconstruction algorithm (MBIR) regarding image quality and dose reduction in liver computed tomography. Invest Radiol 2013;48:598–606 doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e3182899104 pmid:23511193

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Goodenberger MH,
    2. Wagner-Bartak NA,
    3. Gupta S, et al

    . Computed tomography image quality evaluation of a new iterative reconstruction algorithm in the abdomen (adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V): a comparison with model-based iterative reconstruction, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and filtered back projection reconstructions. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2018;42:184–90 doi:10.1097/RCT.0000000000000666 pmid:28806318

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Noda Y,
    2. Goshima S,
    3. Koyasu H, et al

    . Renovascular CT: comparison between adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and model-based iterative reconstruction. Clin Radiol 2017;72:901.e913–19 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2017.06.002 pmid:28673448

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Smith EA,
    2. Dillman JR,
    3. Goodsitt MM, et al

    . Model-based iterative reconstruction: effect on patient radiation dose and image quality in pediatric body CT. Radiology 2014;270:526–34 doi:10.1148/radiol.13130362 pmid:24091359

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Taguchi N,
    2. Oda S,
    3. Imuta M, et al

    . Model-based iterative reconstruction in low-radiation-dose computed tomography colonography: preoperative assessment in patients with colorectal cancer. Acad Radiol 2018;25:415–22 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2017.10.008 pmid:29191684

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Yasaka K,
    2. Katsura M,
    3. Akahane M, et al

    . Model-based iterative reconstruction and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: dose-reduced CT for detecting pancreatic calcification. Acta Radiol Open 2016;5:205846011662834 doi:10.1177/2058460116628340 pmid:27110389

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Yuki H,
    2. Oda S,
    3. Utsunomiya D, et al

    . Clinical impact of model-based type iterative reconstruction with fast reconstruction time on image quality of low-dose screening chest CT. Acta Radiol 2016;57:295–302 doi:10.1177/0284185115575537 pmid:25817455

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. De Crop A,
    2. Casselman J,
    3. Van Hoof T, et al

    . Analysis of metal artifact reduction tools for dental hardware in CT scans of the oral cavity: kVp, iterative reconstruction, dual-energy CT, metal artifact reduction software—does it make a difference? Neuroradiology 2015;57:841–49 doi:10.1007/s00234-015-1537-1 pmid:25929982

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Boudabbous S,
    2. Arditi D,
    3. Paulin E, et al

    . Model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) for the reduction of metal artifacts on CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:380–85 doi:10.2214/AJR.14.13334 pmid:26204291

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Kuya K,
    2. Shinohara Y,
    3. Kato A, et al

    . Reduction of metal artifacts due to dental hardware in computed tomography angiography: assessment of the utility of model-based iterative reconstruction. Neuroradiology 2017;59:231–35 doi:10.1007/s00234-017-1811-5 pmid:28255903

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Yasaka K,
    2. Kamiya K,
    3. Irie R, et al

    . Metal artefact reduction for patients with metallic dental fillings in helical neck computed tomography: comparison of adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR 3D), forward-projected model-based iterative reconstruction solution (FIRST) and AIDR 3D with single-energy metal artefact reduction (SEMAR). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016;45:20160114 doi:10.1259/dmfr.20160114 pmid:27268082

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Li H,
    2. Noel C,
    3. Chen H, et al

    . Clinical evaluation of a commercial orthopedic metal artifact reduction tool for CT simulations in radiation therapy. Med Phys 2012;39:7507–17 doi:10.1118/1.4762814 pmid:23231300

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Brook OR,
    2. Gourtsoyianni S,
    3. Brook A, et al

    . Spectral CT with metal artifacts reduction software for improvement of tumor visibility in the vicinity of gold fiducial markers. Radiology 2012;263:696–705 doi:10.1148/radiol.12111170 pmid:22416251

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Lell MM,
    2. Meyer E,
    3. Kuefner MA, et al

    . Normalized metal artifact reduction in head and neck computed tomography. Invest Radiol 2012;47:415–21 doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e3182532f17 pmid:22659592

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Kidoh M,
    2. Nakaura T,
    3. Nakamura S, et al

    . Reduction of dental metallic artefacts in CT: value of a newly developed algorithm for metal artefact reduction (O-MAR). Clin Radiol 2014;69:e11–16 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2013.08.008 pmid:24156796

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Diehn FE,
    2. Michalak GJ,
    3. DeLone DR, et al

    . CT dental artifact: comparison of an iterative metal artifact reduction technique with weighted filtered back-projection. Acta Radiol Open 2017;6:205846011774327 doi:10.1177/2058460117743279 pmid:29225924

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Hakim A,
    2. Slotboom J,
    3. Lieger O, et al

    . Clinical evaluation of the iterative metal artefact reduction algorithm for post-operative CT examination after maxillofacial surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017;46:20160355 doi:10.1259/dmfr.20160355 pmid:28112538

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Weiß J,
    2. Schabel C,
    3. Bongers M, et al

    . Impact of iterative metal artifact reduction on diagnostic image quality in patients with dental hardware. Acta Radiol 2017;58:279–85 doi:10.1177/0284185116646144 pmid:27166346

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Niehues SM,
    2. Vahldiek JL,
    3. Tröltzsch D, et al

    . Impact of single-energy metal artifact reduction on CT image quality in patients with dental hardware. Comput Biol Med 2018;103:161–66 doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.10.023 pmid:30384174

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Lubner MG,
    2. Pickhardt PJ,
    3. Tang J, et al

    . Reduced image noise at low-dose multidetector CT of the abdomen with prior image constrained compressed sensing algorithm. Radiology 2011;260:248–56 doi:10.1148/radiol.11101380 pmid:21436086

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Lin XZ,
    2. Miao F,
    3. Li JY, et al

    . High-definition CT Gemstone spectral imaging of the brain: initial results of selecting optimal monochromatic image for beam-hardening artifacts and image noise reduction. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2011;35:294–97 doi:10.1097/RCT.0b013e3182058d5c

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Wang Y,
    2. Qian B,
    3. Li B, et al

    . Metal artifacts reduction using monochromatic images from spectral CT: evaluation of pedicle screws in patients with scoliosis. Eur J Radiol 2013;82:e360–66 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.02.024 pmid:23518146

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Lydiatt WM,
    2. Patel SG,
    3. O’Sullivan B, et al

    . Head and neck cancers: major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer Eighth Edition Cancer Staging Manual. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:122–37 doi:10.3322/caac.21389 pmid:28128848

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Svanholm H,
    2. Starklint H,
    3. Gundersen HJ, et al

    . Reproducibility of histomorphologic diagnoses with special reference to the kappa statistic. APMIS 1989;97:689–98 doi:10.1111/j.1699-0463.1989.tb00464.x pmid:2669853

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    1. Blatt S,
    2. Ziebart T,
    3. Krüger M, et al

    . Diagnosing oral squamous cell carcinoma: How much imaging do we really need? A review of the current literature. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016;44:538–49 doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2016.02.003 pmid:26976698

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Cha J,
    2. Kim HJ,
    3. Kim ST, et al

    . Dual-energy CT with virtual monochromatic images and metal artifact reduction software for reducing metallic dental artifacts. Acta Radiol 2017;58:1312–19 doi:10.1177/0284185117692174 pmid:28273739

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Laukamp KR,
    2. Zopfs D,
    3. Lennartz S, et al

    . Metal artifacts in patients with large dental implants and bridges: combination of metal artifact reduction algorithms and virtual monoenergetic images provides an approach to handle even strongest artifacts. Eur Radiol 2019;29:4228–38 doi:10.1007/s00330-018-5928-7 pmid:30649598

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Toso S,
    2. Laurent M,
    3. Lozeron ED, et al

    . Iterative algorithms for metal artifact reduction in children with orthopedic prostheses: preliminary results. Pediatr Radiol 2018;48:1884–90 doi:10.1007/s00247-018-4217-6 pmid:30056564

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Wellenberg RH,
    2. Boomsma MF,
    3. van Osch JA, et al

    . Computed tomography imaging of a hip prosthesis using iterative model-based reconstruction and orthopaedic metal artefact reduction: a quantitative analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2016;40:971–78 doi:10.1097/RCT.0000000000000449 pmid:27331924

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    1. Neroladaki A,
    2. Martin SP,
    3. Bagetakos I, et al

    . Metallic artifact reduction by evaluation of the additional value of iterative reconstruction algorithms in hip prosthesis computed tomography imaging. Medicine 2019;98:e14341 doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000014341 pmid:30732160

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Tsuchida Y,
    2. Takahashi H,
    3. Watanabe H, et al

    . Effects of number of metal restorations and mandibular position during computed tomography imaging on accuracy of maxillofacial models. J Prosthodont Res 2019;63:239–44 doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2018.12.006 pmid:30658907

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    1. Motoyama S,
    2. Ito H,
    3. Sarai M, et al

    . Ultra-high-resolution computed tomography angiography for assessment of coronary artery stenosis. Circ J 2018;82:1844–51 doi:10.1253/circj.CJ-17-1281 pmid:29743388

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    1. Faber J,
    2. Fonseca LM

    . How sample size influences research outcomes. Dental Press J Orthod 2014;19:27–29 doi:10.1590/2176-9451.19.4.027-029.ebo pmid:25279518

    CrossRefPubMed