RESUMEN
Purpose@#This study aimed to quantify the influence of tooth position within the field-of-view (FOV) on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging artifacts' intensity when assessing teeth restored with various intracanal materials. @*Materials and Methods@#Seventy single-rooted teeth were divided into 7 groups (10 teeth per group): NiCr post (NC), AgPd post (AP), metal core fiberglass post (MCFG), fiberglass post (FG), anatomical fiberglass post (AFG), fiberglass post cemented with core build-up cement (FGCo), and anatomical fiberglass post cemented with core build-up cement (AFGCo). All posts were cemented using a regular dual-curing resin cement (Allcem), except FGCo and AFGCo which were cemented with a core build-up dual-curing resin cement (AllcemCore). Each tooth was scanned on a CS9000 in 5 positions within the FOV: a central position, anterior horizontal peripheral, peripheral superior, peripheral inferior, and posterior horizontal peripheral position. Hyperdense, hypodense, remaining teeth areas and ROI areas were quantitatively analyzed using ImageJ software. @*Results@#Posterior horizontal peripheral position increased the intensity of artifacts on FGCo and AFGCo post groups (p<0.05), and specifically the hypodense artifact intensity on FG and AFG post groups (p<0.05). NC and AP groups presented greater intensity of artifacts than any other post groups (p<0.05). @*Conclusion@#Artifact intensity increases in the presence of high atomic number materials and when the object is not centered within the FOV. The impact of positioning within the FOV on artifact was greater for fiberglass posts cemented with core build-up dual-curing cement than for metal posts and fiberglass posts cemented with regular dual-curing cement.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To quantify artifacts from different root filling materials in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images acquired using different exposure parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen single-rooted teeth were scanned using 8 different exposure protocols with 3 different filling materials and once without filling material as a control group. Artifact quantification was performed by a trained observer who made measurements in the central axial slice of all acquired images in a fixed region of interest using ImageJ. Hyperdense artifacts, hypodense artifacts, and the remaining tooth area were identified, and the percentages of hyperdense and hypodense artifacts, remaining tooth area, and tooth area affected by the artifacts were calculated. Artifacts were analyzed qualitatively by 2 observers using the following scores: absence (0), moderate presence (1), and high presence (2) for hypodense halos, hypodense lines, and hyperdense lines. Two-way ANOVA and the post-hoc Tukey test were used for quantitative and qualitative artifact analysis. The Dunnet test was also used for qualitative analysis. The significance level was set at P.05). CONCLUSION: Different exposure parameters did not affect the objective or subjective observations of artifacts in CBCT images; however, the filling materials used in endodontic restorations did affect both types of assessments.