Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32206614›Full record

ArticleImaging science in dentistry2020

Magnitude of beam-hardening artifacts produced by gutta-percha and metal posts on cone-beam computed tomography with varying tube current.

Hugo Gaêta-Araujo, Eduarda Helena Leandro Nascimento, Rocharles Cavalcante Fontenele, Arthur Xavier Maseti Mancini, Deborah Queiroz Freitas, Christiano Oliveira-Santos

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Bioinformation · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. cBrazilian dental journal · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hugo Gaêta-AraujoDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5087-5022
Eduarda Helena Leandro NascimentoDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9088-2320
Rocharles Cavalcante FonteneleDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6426-9768
Arthur Xavier Maseti ManciniDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry of Ribeirao Preto, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5443-8225
Deborah Queiroz FreitasDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1425-5966
Christiano Oliveira-SantosDepartment of Stomatology, Public Oral Health and Forensic Dentistry, Division of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry of Ribeirao Preto, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9936-7547
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BRUniversidade de Ribeirão Preto · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study was performed to evaluate the magnitude of artifacts produced by gutta-percha and metal posts on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans obtained with different tube currents and with or without metal artifact reduction (MAR). MATERIALS AND

methodsA tooth was inserted in a dry human mandible socket, and CBCT scans were acquired after root canal instrumentation, root canal filling, and metal post placement with various tube currents with and without MAR activation. The artifact magnitude was assessed by the standard deviation (SD) of gray values and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) at the various distances from the tooth. Data were compared using multi-way analysis of variance.

resultsAt all distances, a current of 4 mA was associated with a higher SD and a lower CNR than 8 mA or 10 mA (

conclusionIncreasing the tube current from 4 mA to 8 mA may reduce the magnitude of artifacts from metal posts. The magnitude of artifacts arising from metal posts was significantly higher at distances of 1.5 cm or less than at greater distances. MAR usage improved image quality near the metal post, but had no significant influence farther than 1.5 cm from the tooth.

Indexed as

ArtifactsCone-Beam Computed TomographyGutta-PerchaMetals

Identifiers

PMID32206614
PMCPMC7078413
OpenAlexW3011914210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.