ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2019
Estimation of contrast-to-noise ratio in CT and CBCT images with varying scan settings in presence of different implant materials.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation and comparison of contrast-to-noise ratio generated by lithium disilicate and zirconia: A phantom study.Imaging science in dentistry · 2025Article
- The influence of the field of view and voxel size on the contrast-to-noise ratio in cone-beam computed tomography imaging.Imaging science in dentistry · 2024Article
- Quantitative analysis of zirconia and titanium implant artefacts in three-dimensional virtual models of multi-slice CT and cone beam CT: does scan protocol matter?Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2023Article
- Filtered back projection vs. iterative reconstruction for CBCT: effects on image noise and processing time.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2023Article
- The Impact of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Exposure Parameters on Peri-Implant Artifacts: A Literature Review.Cureus · 2022Review
- Image-Quality Assessment of Polyenergetic and Virtual Monoenergetic Reconstructions of Unenhanced CT Scans of the Head: Initial Experiences with the First Photon-Counting CT Approved for Clinical Use.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of four different types of dental implant materials in CT and cone beam CT (CBCT) images with varying scan settings.
methodsFour different types of implants: zirconium (Zr), titanium (Ti) Grade 4 and 5 and titanium-zirconium (Ti-ZrO2) alloy were placed in a 3% gelatin phantom in a cylindrical plastic container and scanned with two different CT machines (GE Medical systems and Toshiba Medical Systems) and one CBCT machine (I-CAT, Imaging Sciences International) with different voxel sizes of 0.2, 0.25, 0.3 and 0.4 mm. Images were analyzed using ImageJ software with the purpose of estimating the CNR.
resultsThe CNR obtained from images acquired with CT was lower than the CBCT with all voxel sizes tested. 0.3 and 0.4 mm voxel sizes exhibited the highest CNR (
conclusionsThe optimum protocol for radiographic follow-up in areas near implants on the I-CAT is low-resolution settings (0.3 and 0.4 mm voxel sizes) which gave the highest CNR thus image quality. In presence of Zr implants, an alternative imaging modality (
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.