ArticleClinical oral investigations2020
Image retake rates of cone beam computed tomography in a dental institution.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current evidence of generative artificial intelligence specifically developed for dental and maxillofacial radiology: a systematic review.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Comparing standard- and low-dose CBCT in diagnosis and treatment decisions for impacted mandibular third molars: a non-inferiority randomised clinical study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Head motion and perception of discomfort by young children during simulated CBCT examinations.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2021Trial
- Optimizing CBCT acquisition for detecting non-displaced dentoalveolar fractures: effects of field of view and resolution mode.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Impact of Generative AI-Enhanced Low-Dose Cone-Beam Computed Tomography on Diagnosis and Treatment Planning for Impacted Mandibular Third Molars.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Optimization of the size and location of the FOVs for CBCT capture of the TMJ.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Personalized dental medicine, artificial intelligence, and their relevance for dentomaxillofacial imaging.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2023Review
- The Use of CBCT in Evaluating the Health and Pathology of the Maxillary Sinus.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Potential and impact of artificial intelligence algorithms in dento-maxillofacial radiology.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Review
- An analysis of patient dose received during cone-beam computed tomography in relation to scan settings and imaging indications as seen in a dental institution in order to establish institutional diagnostic reference levels.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2022Article
- Reject Rates of Radiographic Images in Dentomaxillofacial Radiology: A Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Repetition Rate of Scanning Due to Motion Artefacts in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: a Retrospective Study.Journal of oral & maxillofacial researchArticle
- Evaluation of the dosimetry and centralization of scout-view function in CBCT.Brazilian dental journalArticle
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the frequency and reasons for retaking cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans in an oral and maxillofacial radiology imaging clinic in a dental institution. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective cohort chart audit of the patient image database was performed for 1737 patients attending the Diagnostic Imaging clinic at the Prince Philip Dental Hospital from February 2016 to May 2019, and the rate of, and reasons for, CBCT image re-exposure was tallied. Patient demographics (age and gender) and CBCT acquisition parameters (CBCT unit, field-of-view (FOV), scanned region of interest, and exposure time) were recorded and correlated to retake analysis.
resultsThe retake rate was 4.6% (80/1737). The most common reasons for re-exposure were incomplete FOV coverage (57.5%) and motion artifacts (27.5%). Patients under 12 years of age had a significantly higher risk for motion artifacts. CBCT for the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) had a significantly higher risk for incomplete FOV coverage.
conclusionsChildren (less than 12 years of age) demonstrate a higher frequency of retakes, principally due to motion artifacts. TMJ CBCT examinations have a higher frequency of retakes due to an incomplete FOV coverage. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Information regarding the frequency and reasons for CBCT retakes is beneficial to identify procedures, practices, or patients susceptible to additional radiation exposure and implement appropriate and specific quality control protocols.
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.