Detection of patient movement during CBCT examination using video observation compared with an accelerometer-gyroscope tracking system.

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.

[1]  Jung-Ha Kim,et al.  An iterative projection-based motion estimation and compensation scheme for head x-ray CT. , 2016, Medical physics.

[2]  A. Wenzel,et al.  Movement characteristics in young patients and the impact on CBCT image quality. , 2016, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[3]  R Schulze,et al.  Artefacts in CBCT: a review. , 2011, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[4]  K Donaldson,et al.  Dental cone beam CT image quality possibly reduced by patient movement. , 2013, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[5]  J B Ludlow,et al.  Effective dose of dental CBCT-a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. , 2015, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[6]  Tomáš Hanzelka,et al.  Reduction of the negative influence of patient motion on quality of CBCT scan. , 2010, Medical hypotheses.

[7]  A Wenzel,et al.  Radiographic observers' ability to recognize patient movement during cone beam CT. , 2014, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[8]  Do-Gyoon Kim Can Dental Cone Beam Computed Tomography Assess Bone Mineral Density? , 2014, Journal of bone metabolism.

[9]  Claudia Borri,et al.  Metal and motion artifacts by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dental and maxillofacial study , 2015, La radiologia medica.

[10]  D Brüllmann,et al.  Spatial resolution in CBCT machines for dental/maxillofacial applications-what do we know today? , 2015, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[11]  A. Wenzel,et al.  Factors affecting patient movement and re-exposure in cone beam computed tomography examination. , 2015, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology.

[12]  Ulrich Schwanecke,et al.  Automated detection of patient movement during a CBCT scan based on the projection data. , 2015, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology.

[13]  Ann Wenzel,et al.  Patient movement and motion artefacts in cone beam computed tomography of the dentomaxillofacial region: a systematic literature review. , 2016, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology.

[14]  Jaroslav Dusek,et al.  Movement of the patient and the cone beam computed tomography scanner: objectives and possible solutions. , 2013, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology.

[15]  H. Bosmans,et al.  Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[16]  Anton Umek,et al.  Suitability of Smartphone Inertial Sensors for Real-Time Biofeedback Applications , 2016, Sensors.

[17]  R Jacobs,et al.  Dose distribution for dental cone beam CT and its implication for defining a dose index. , 2012, Dento maxillo facial radiology.