Cargando…

Repetition of Examination Due to Motion Artifacts in Horizontal Cone Beam CT: Comparison among Three Different Kinds of Head Support

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the repetition rate of examination due to motion artifacts in horizontal cone beam computed tomography, using three different kinds of head support, with reference to the patient's age. Further purpose was to evaluate how comfortable he...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nardi, Cosimo, Taliani, Gian Giacomo, Castellani, Alessandro, De Falco, Luisa, Selvi, Valeria, Calistri, Linda
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5558256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28852638
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_17_17
_version_ 1783257357749321728
author Nardi, Cosimo
Taliani, Gian Giacomo
Castellani, Alessandro
De Falco, Luisa
Selvi, Valeria
Calistri, Linda
author_facet Nardi, Cosimo
Taliani, Gian Giacomo
Castellani, Alessandro
De Falco, Luisa
Selvi, Valeria
Calistri, Linda
author_sort Nardi, Cosimo
collection PubMed
description AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the repetition rate of examination due to motion artifacts in horizontal cone beam computed tomography, using three different kinds of head support, with reference to the patient's age. Further purpose was to evaluate how comfortable head supports were. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven hundred and fifty patients underwent a maxillofacial/dental arches volumetric imaging scan. They were divided into three groups depending on the head support used: foam headrest, foam headrest with head strap, and head restraint helmet. Each group was subdivided into three age groups: ≤18-year-old, 19–65-year-old, and ≥66-year-old patients. A severity index of motion artifacts, divided into four tiers from absence to remarkable artifacts, was adopted. Finally, each patient gave their judgment about the head support comfort by a questionnaire including ten yes/no questions. A three-score scale (insufficient, sufficient, and good) was used to judge the comfort. Collected data were analyzed using the SPSS(®) version 23.0 statistical analysis software. RESULTS: Forty-one patients (5.4%) repeated the examination. In 16 (2.1%), 15 (2.0%), and 10 (1.3%) of them, foam headrest, foam headrest with head strap, and head restraint helmet were used, respectively. Examination was repeated in 5.3%, 3.8%, and 10.6% in ≤18-year-old, 19–65-year-old, and ≥66-year-old patients, respectively. Patients almost always judged good the comfort for each kind of support. The lowest percentage of satisfaction was observed for the headrest with head strap and was judged good in 78% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: The repetition rate of examination showed similar values among the foam headrest, foam headrest with head strap, and head restraint helmet in under 66-year-old patients. In over 65-year-old patients, the head restraint helmet obviously decreased the repetition rate of examination. All three head supports were good comfort, especially the foam headrest.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5558256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55582562017-08-29 Repetition of Examination Due to Motion Artifacts in Horizontal Cone Beam CT: Comparison among Three Different Kinds of Head Support Nardi, Cosimo Taliani, Gian Giacomo Castellani, Alessandro De Falco, Luisa Selvi, Valeria Calistri, Linda J Int Soc Prev Community Dent Original Article AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the repetition rate of examination due to motion artifacts in horizontal cone beam computed tomography, using three different kinds of head support, with reference to the patient's age. Further purpose was to evaluate how comfortable head supports were. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven hundred and fifty patients underwent a maxillofacial/dental arches volumetric imaging scan. They were divided into three groups depending on the head support used: foam headrest, foam headrest with head strap, and head restraint helmet. Each group was subdivided into three age groups: ≤18-year-old, 19–65-year-old, and ≥66-year-old patients. A severity index of motion artifacts, divided into four tiers from absence to remarkable artifacts, was adopted. Finally, each patient gave their judgment about the head support comfort by a questionnaire including ten yes/no questions. A three-score scale (insufficient, sufficient, and good) was used to judge the comfort. Collected data were analyzed using the SPSS(®) version 23.0 statistical analysis software. RESULTS: Forty-one patients (5.4%) repeated the examination. In 16 (2.1%), 15 (2.0%), and 10 (1.3%) of them, foam headrest, foam headrest with head strap, and head restraint helmet were used, respectively. Examination was repeated in 5.3%, 3.8%, and 10.6% in ≤18-year-old, 19–65-year-old, and ≥66-year-old patients, respectively. Patients almost always judged good the comfort for each kind of support. The lowest percentage of satisfaction was observed for the headrest with head strap and was judged good in 78% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: The repetition rate of examination showed similar values among the foam headrest, foam headrest with head strap, and head restraint helmet in under 66-year-old patients. In over 65-year-old patients, the head restraint helmet obviously decreased the repetition rate of examination. All three head supports were good comfort, especially the foam headrest. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017 2017-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC5558256/ /pubmed/28852638 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_17_17 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Nardi, Cosimo
Taliani, Gian Giacomo
Castellani, Alessandro
De Falco, Luisa
Selvi, Valeria
Calistri, Linda
Repetition of Examination Due to Motion Artifacts in Horizontal Cone Beam CT: Comparison among Three Different Kinds of Head Support
title Repetition of Examination Due to Motion Artifacts in Horizontal Cone Beam CT: Comparison among Three Different Kinds of Head Support
title_full Repetition of Examination Due to Motion Artifacts in Horizontal Cone Beam CT: Comparison among Three Different Kinds of Head Support
title_fullStr Repetition of Examination Due to Motion Artifacts in Horizontal Cone Beam CT: Comparison among Three Different Kinds of Head Support
title_full_unstemmed Repetition of Examination Due to Motion Artifacts in Horizontal Cone Beam CT: Comparison among Three Different Kinds of Head Support
title_short Repetition of Examination Due to Motion Artifacts in Horizontal Cone Beam CT: Comparison among Three Different Kinds of Head Support
title_sort repetition of examination due to motion artifacts in horizontal cone beam ct: comparison among three different kinds of head support
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5558256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28852638
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_17_17
work_keys_str_mv AT nardicosimo repetitionofexaminationduetomotionartifactsinhorizontalconebeamctcomparisonamongthreedifferentkindsofheadsupport
AT talianigiangiacomo repetitionofexaminationduetomotionartifactsinhorizontalconebeamctcomparisonamongthreedifferentkindsofheadsupport
AT castellanialessandro repetitionofexaminationduetomotionartifactsinhorizontalconebeamctcomparisonamongthreedifferentkindsofheadsupport
AT defalcoluisa repetitionofexaminationduetomotionartifactsinhorizontalconebeamctcomparisonamongthreedifferentkindsofheadsupport
AT selvivaleria repetitionofexaminationduetomotionartifactsinhorizontalconebeamctcomparisonamongthreedifferentkindsofheadsupport
AT calistrilinda repetitionofexaminationduetomotionartifactsinhorizontalconebeamctcomparisonamongthreedifferentkindsofheadsupport