ArticleImaging science in dentistry2020
Head motion during cone-beam computed tomography: Analysis of frequency and influence on image quality.
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 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.
- Robot-assisted Computer-Implant surgery : A comprehensive review of system architecture, clinical accuracy, and emerging technologies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Effect of Maxillary Expansion and Protraction in Class III Children on Quality of Life, Dentofacial and Upper Airway Characteristics: A Controlled Clinical Trial.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Article
- Application of Artificial Intelligence in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for Airway Analysis: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Feasibility of photon-counting computed tomography as a novel imaging modality for challenging endodontic diagnostic tasks.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Dental imaging using an ultra-high resolution photon-counting CT system.Scientific reports · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeImage artifacts caused by patient motion cause problems in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) because they lead to distortion of the 3-dimensional reconstruction. This prospective study was performed to quantify patient movement during CBCT acquisition and its influence on image quality. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn total, 412 patients receiving CBCT imaging were equipped with a wireless head sensor system that detected inertial, gyroscopic, and magnetometric movements with 6 dimensions of freedom. The type and amplitude of movements during CBCT acquisition were evaluated and image quality was rated in 7 different anatomical regions of interest. For continuous variables, significance was calculated using the Student t-test. A linear regression model was applied to identify associations of the type and extent of motion with image quality scores. Kappa statistics were used to assess intra- and inter-rater agreement. Chi-square testing was used to analyze the impact of age and sex on head movement.
resultsAll CBCT images were acquired in a 10-month period. In 24% of the investigations, movement was recorded (acceleration: >0.10 [m/s
conclusionRelevant head motions during CBCT imaging were frequently detected, leading to image quality loss and potentially impairing diagnosis and therapy planning. The presented data illustrate the need for digital correction algorithms and hardware to minimize motion artefacts in CBCT imaging.
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.