Comparative Evaluation of Artifacts Originated by Four Different Post Materials Using Different CBCT Settings

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images in the presence of four different post materials, obtained from different kVps with varying resolutions and varying metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms, differed in artifact estimation, and to compare tooth regions in terms of artifact value. Materials and Methods: Forty premolar teeth were used in this study. Root canals were treated, and teeth were randomly distributed into four subgroups (n = 10) for the preparation of post materials: titanium, gold (Nordin), quartz fiber (Bisco DT Light), and glass fiber (Rely X). The CBCT images were taken with two different kVps, three different metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithm options, and two different resolutions. For each protocol, the effective dose was calculated according to the dose area production (DAP) value. The standard analysis of variance technique and the Tukey multiple comparison adjustment method were used to assess interactions among material types, kVp, MAR, and voxel settings. Results: More artifacts were found in the middle third than in the cervical third (p < 0.05). The mean value of artifacts was highest for gold (Nordin), 90 kVp, no MAR, and 100 voxel size. Glass or quartz fiber posts at low resolution, with high MAR and 96 kVp, originated fewer artifacts. Moreover, the use of 90 and 96 kVp with 200 voxel size and high MAR provided the least amount of radiation. Conclusion: The best setting for radiographic follow-up of post materials on the Planmeca ProMax is 96 kVp with low resolution and high MAR; this setting produced one of the lowest effective doses. Clinical Significance: This study estimated the best scanning protocol by lowering the effective dose to a minimum level according to the “as low as reasonably achievable” principle, as well as assessing the tooth region and the post material generating the fewest artifacts, in order to prevent image interpretation challenges such as false-positive and false-negative results stemming from the deterioration of the visibility of the root canal due to perforation, fractures, and voids in the root canal region.