Publications by authors named "Karolina A C Fardim"

Purpose: This study aimed to assess texture analysis (TA) of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images as a quantitative tool for the differential diagnosis of odontogenic and non-odontogenic maxillary sinusitis (OS and NOS, respectively).

Materials And Methods: CBCT images of 40 patients diagnosed with OS (N=20) and NOS (N=20) were evaluated. The gray level co-occurrence (GLCM) matrix parameters, and gray level run length matrix texture (GLRLM) parameters were extracted using manually placed regions of interest on lesion images.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objective: To evaluate a postprocessing filter of a new imaging-processing software for analysis of metal artifact reduction.

Methods: Eight artificial edentulous mandibles (phantoms), where titanium and zirconium dioxide implants had been installed in four different regions (i.e.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

This study evaluated the quantity of metal artifacts produced by dental implants placed in different mandibular regions using various cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) protocols. Titanium implants were placed in 4 regions (incisor, canine, premolar, and molar) of an artificial mandible and subjected to CBCT examinations with the mandibular model placed in different positions within the field of view (FOV) and imaged with different FOV and voxel sizes. An axial section of the cervical region of each implant was selected for artifact quantification.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objectives: To evaluate, in an study, the quantity of artefacts generated by two different restorative materials, and to determine the diagnostic accuracy of cone beam CT (CBCT) scans and periapical radiographs in identifying gaps in prosthetic crowns.

Methods: A total of 30 teeth restored with metal-ceramic ( = 15) and all-ceramic ( = 15) crowns, properly adapted and with 0.30- and 0.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objectives: To quantitatively compare metal artefacts produced by implants in different maxillomandibular regions on cone beam CT (CBCT) images.

Methods: A total of 200 implants selected from CBCT examinations were divided into four groups: Group 1 (n = 50)-implants located in the anterior maxilla; Group 2 (n = 50)-implants located in the posterior maxilla; Group 3 (n = 50)-implants located in the anterior mandible and Group 4 (n = 50)-implants located in the posterior mandible. The implants were further classified as isolated or adjacent to other implants.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF