ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2018
Accuracy of computer-aided design models of the jaws produced using ultra-low MDCT doses and ASIR and MBIR.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of the as Low as Diagnostically Acceptable CT Dose for Identification of the Inferior Alveolar Canal Using 3D Convolutional Neural Networks with Multi-Balancing Strategies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Can ultra-low-dose computed tomography reliably diagnose and classify maxillofacial fractures in the clinical routine?Imaging science in dentistry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the surface of computer-aided design (CAD) models of the maxilla produced using ultra-low MDCT doses combined with filtered backprojection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) reconstruction techniques with that produced from a standard dose/FBP protocol.
methodsA cadaveric completely edentulous maxilla was imaged using a standard dose protocol (CTDIvol: 29.4 mGy) and FBP, in addition to 5 low dose test protocols (LD1-5) (CTDIvol: 4.19, 2.64, 0.99, 0.53, and 0.29 mGy) reconstructed with FBP, ASIR 50, ASIR 100, and MBIR. A CAD model from each test protocol was superimposed onto the reference model using the 'Best Fit Alignment' function. Differences between the test and reference models were analyzed as maximum and mean deviations, and root-mean-square of the deviations, and color-coded models were obtained which demonstrated the location, magnitude and direction of the deviations.
resultsBased upon the magnitude, size, and distribution of areas of deviations, CAD models from the following protocols were comparable to the reference model: FBP/LD1; ASIR 50/LD1 and LD2; ASIR 100/LD1, LD2, and LD3; MBIR/LD1. The following protocols demonstrated deviations mostly between 1-2 mm or under 1 mm but over large areas, and so their effect on surgical guide accuracy is questionable: FBP/LD2; MBIR/LD2, LD3, LD4, and LD5. The following protocols demonstrated large deviations over large areas and therefore were not comparable to the reference model: FBP/LD3, LD4, and LD5; ASIR 50/LD3, LD4, and LD5; ASIR 100/LD4, and LD5.
conclusionsWhen MDCT is used for CAD models of the jaws, dose reductions of 86% may be possible with FBP, 91% with ASIR 50, and 97% with ASIR 100. Analysis of the stability and accuracy of CAD/CAM surgical guides as directly related to the jaws is needed to confirm the results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29909528What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.