ArticleClinical oral investigations2021
Artefacts at different distances from titanium and zirconia implants in cone-beam computed tomography: effect of tube current and metal artefact reduction.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation and comparison of contrast-to-noise ratio generated by lithium disilicate and zirconia: A phantom study.Imaging science in dentistry · 2025Article
- Silent Witnesses: Exploring the Impact of Cone Beam Computed Tomography on Forensic Investigations.Cureus · 2025Review
- Expression of artefacts from different orthodontic brackets and wires in cone beam computed tomography scans-an in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Influence of tube current and metal artifact reduction on the diagnosis of external cervical resorption in teeth adjacent to a dental implant in CBCT: an ex-vivo study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Effect of metal artefact reduction level on the assessment of dental implant positioning by cone-beam computed tomography.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2024Article
- Zirconia implants interfere with the evaluation of peri-implant bone defects in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images even with artifact reduction, a pilot study.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2023Article
- Does the shape of the field-of-view influence the magnitude of artefacts from high-density materials in cone-beam computed tomography?Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2023Article
- Biocompatibility and osteoinductive ability of casein phosphopeptide modified polyetheretherketone.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- The Effect of Changes in the Angular Position of Implants on Metal Artifact Reduction in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Images: A Scoping Review.Radiology research and practice · 2023Article
- Efficacy of low-dose cone beam computed tomography and metal artifact reduction tool for assessment of peri-implant bone defects: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2022Article
- CBCT artefact-burden of zirconia-based as compared to titanium implants for different beam energies: an analytical approach.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Influence of kilovoltage-peak and the metal artifact reduction tool in cone-beam computed tomography on the detection of bone defects around titanium-zirconia and zirconia implants.Imaging science in dentistry · 2022Article
- Influence of artefacts generated by titanium and zirconium implants in the study of trabecular bone architecture in cone-beam CT images.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2022Article
- Does the size of an object containing dental implant affect the expression of artifacts in cone beam computed tomography imaging?Head & face medicine · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effect of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) tube current (mA) on the magnitude of artefacts at different distances from titanium or zirconia implants, with and without activation of a proprietary metal artefact reduction (MAR). MATERIAL AND
methodsHuman mandibles were scanned on an OP300 Maxio CBCT unit (Instrumentarium, Tuusula, Finland) before and after the installation of dental implants, with four different tube currents (4 mA, 6.3 mA, 8 mA and 10 mA), with and without activation of proprietary MAR. The effect of mA on the standard deviation (SD) of gray values and contrast to noise ratio (CNR) were assessed in regions of interest located 1.5 cm, 2.5 cm, and 3.5 cm from implants.
resultsIn the presence of titanium implants, a significant decrease in SD was found by increasing tube current from 4 mA to 6.3 mA or 8 mA. For zirconia implants, 8 mA yielded better results for all distances. MAR improved CNR in the presence of zirconia implants at all distances, whereas no differences were observed with the use of MAR for titanium implants.
conclusionIncreased tube current can improve overall image quality in the presence of implants, at all the distances tested. When a zirconia implant is present, such increase in mA should be higher in comparison to that for examinations with titanium implants. Activation of OP300 Maxio proprietary MAR improved image quality only among examinations with zirconia implants. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Artefact-generating implants are common in the field of view of CBCT examinations. Optimal exposure parameters, such as tube current, ensure high image quality with lowest possible radiation exposure.
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.