Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28852638›Full record

ArticleJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry

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

Cosimo Nardi, Gian Giacomo Taliani, Alessandro Castellani, Luisa De Falco, Valeria Selvi, Linda Calistri

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Cosimo NardiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, University of Florence - Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Gian Giacomo TalianiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, University of Florence - Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Alessandro CastellaniDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, University of Florence - Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Luisa De FalcoDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, University of Florence - Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Valeria SelviDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, University of Florence - Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Linda CalistriDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, University of Florence - Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AIMS AND

objectivesThe 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

methodsSeven 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

resultsForty-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.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

Cone beam computed tomographyhead supportmeans of immobilization/stabilization/fixation/restraintmotion artifactspatient movement

Identifiers

PMID28852638
PMCPMC5558256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.