Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Detection of patient movement during CBCT examination using video observation compared with an accelerometer-gyroscope tracking system.
Spin-Neto, Rubens; Matzen, Louise H; Schropp, Lars; Gotfredsen, Erik; Wenzel, Ann.
Affiliation
  • Spin-Neto R; Section of Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
  • Matzen LH; Section of Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
  • Schropp L; Section of Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
  • Gotfredsen E; Section of Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
  • Wenzel A; Section of Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Dentomaxillofac Radiol ; 46(2): 20160289, 2017 Feb.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27786564
OBJECTIVES: To compare video observation (VO) with a novel three-dimensional registration method, based on an accelerometer-gyroscope (AG) system, to detect patient movement during CBCT examination. The movements were further analyzed according to complexity and patient age. METHODS: In 181 patients (118 females/63 males; age average 30 years, range: 9-84 years), 206 CBCT examinations were performed, which were video-recorded during examination. An AG was, at the same time, attached to the patient head to track head position in three dimensions. Three observers scored patient movement (yes/no) by VO. AG provided movement data on the x-, y- and z-axes. Thresholds for AG-based registration were defined at 0.5, 1, 2, 3 and 4 mm (movement distance). Movement detected by VO was compared with that registered by AG, according to movement complexity (uniplanar vs multiplanar, as defined by AG) and patient age (≤15, 16-30 and ≥31 years). RESULTS: According to AG, movement ≥0.5 mm was present in 160 (77.7%) examinations. According to VO, movement was present in 46 (22.3%) examinations. One VO-detected movement was not registered by AG. Overall, VO did not detect 71.9% of the movements registered by AG at the 0.5-mm threshold. At a movement distance ≥4 mm, 20% of the AG-registered movements were not detected by VO. Multiplanar movements such as lateral head rotation (72.1%) and nodding/swallowing (52.6%) were more often detected by VO in comparison with uniplanar movements, such as head lifting (33.6%) and anteroposterior translation (35.6%), at the 0.5-mm threshold. The prevalence of patients who move was highest in patients younger than 16 years (64.3% for VO and 92.3% for AG-based registration at the 0.5-mm threshold). CONCLUSIONS: AG-based movement registration resulted in a higher prevalence of patient movement during CBCT examination than VO-based registration. Also, AG-registered multiplanar movements were more frequently detected by VO than uniplanar movements. The prevalence of patients who move was highest in patients younger than 16 years.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Head Movements / Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Adolescent / Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Child / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: En Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Year: 2017 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Denmark Country of publication: United kingdom

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Head Movements / Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Adolescent / Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Child / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: En Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Year: 2017 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Denmark Country of publication: United kingdom