ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2019
Re-exposure in cone beam CT of the dentomaxillofacial region: a retrospective study.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artifacts among Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images of Patients of Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology in a Tertiary Care Centre: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2023Article
- Reject Rates of Radiographic Images in Dentomaxillofacial Radiology: A Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Image retake rates of cone beam computed tomography in a dental institution.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the dosimetry and centralization of scout-view function in CBCT.Brazilian dental journalArticle
- Repetition Rate of Scanning Due to Motion Artefacts in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: a Retrospective Study.Journal of oral & maxillofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
methods: In a retrospective cohort study CBCT images of 4986 patients from the patient database from the Department of Oral Radiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany were included and the rate of re-exposures was counted. Patients were stratified into those who received a scan with the small field-of-view CBCT or the large field-of-view CBCT. The effect of patient-related parameters as age and gender was implicated. As a further device-specific parameter, the statistical analysis included whether the selection of the field of view due to the device type had a significant influence on the occurrence of re-exposures. Furthermore, the rescans were analyzed with regard to their causes.
results: In total, CBCT images of 82 (1.6%) patients had to be repeated. Looking at the two different devices, in 42 (1.3%) patients that received a scan with the large field-of-view CBCT and in 40 (2.3%) patients that received a scan with the small field-of-view CBCT respectively needed a retake. There was no statistically significant correlation between age and gender to retakes. For the small field-of-view-size significantly more retakes were observed than for the large one. With 46% motion artifacts were the most frequent causes for a re-exposure of the patient.
conclusions: Gender and age did not have an impact on the occurrence of re-exposures. Patients who received a scan with the small field-of-view CBCT were significantly more often rescanned than those with the large field-of-view CBCT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.