ArticleImaging science in dentistry2020
Detection of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region with spiral computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro study.
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Evaluation of foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region with cone beam computed tomography and ultrasonography: an ex vivo study.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Ultrasonographic and CBCT analysis of foreign bodies and dental materials.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- From Oversight to Outcome: Addressing the Challenges of Foreign Body Management in Temporal Soft-Tissue Injuries.Cureus · 2024Article
- Identification and management of foreign body in the primary teeth.BMJ case reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe detection and exact localization of penetrating foreign bodies are crucial for the appropriate management of patients with dentoalveolar trauma. This study compared the efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and spiral computed tomography (CT) scans for the detection of different foreign bodies composed of 5 frequently encountered materials in 2 sizes. The effect of the location of the foreign bodies on their visibility was also analyzed. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this in vitro study, metal, tooth, stone, glass, and plastic particles measuring 1×1×1 mm and 2×2×2 mm were prepared. They were implanted in a sheep's head in the tongue muscle, nasal cavity, and at the interface of the mandibular cortex and soft tissue. CBCT and spiral CT scans were taken and the visibility of foreign bodies was scored by 4 skilled maxillofacial radiologists who were blinded to the location and number of foreign bodies.
resultsCT and CBCT were equally accurate in visualizing metal, stone, and tooth particles of both sizes. However, CBCT was better for detecting glass particles in the periosteum. Although both imaging modalities visualized plastic particles poorly, CT was slightly better for detecting plastic particles, especially the smaller ones.
conclusionConsidering the lower patient radiation dose and cost, CBCT can be used with almost equal accuracy as CT for detecting foreign bodies of different compositions and sizes in multiple maxillofacial regions. However, CT performed better for detecting plastic particles.
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.