Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33565884›Full record

ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2021

Influence of size of field of view (FOV), position within the FOV, and scanning mode on the detection of root fracture and observer's perception of artifacts in CBCT images.

Martina Gerlane de Oliveira Pinto, Saulo L Sousa Melo, Fernanda Clotilde Mariz Suassuna, Luiz Eduardo Marinho, José Bruno da Silva Leite, Andre Ulisses Dantas Batista, Patrícia Meira Bento, Daniela Pita Melo

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Martina Gerlane de Oliveira PintoDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, State University of Paraíba, Campina Grande, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7563-2980
Saulo L Sousa MeloDepartment of Integrative Biomedical & Diagnostic Sciences, School of Dentistry, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA.
Fernanda Clotilde Mariz SuassunaDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, State University of Paraíba, Campina Grande, Brazil.
Luiz Eduardo MarinhoDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, State University of Paraíba, Campina Grande, Brazil.
José Bruno da Silva LeiteDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, Higher Educational Center of Patos, Patos, Brazil.
Andre Ulisses Dantas BatistaDepartment of Dentistry, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Brazil.
Patrícia Meira BentoDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, State University of Paraíba, Campina Grande, Brazil.
Daniela Pita MeloDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, State University of Paraíba, Campina Grande, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the influence of field of view (FOV) size, scanning position within the FOV and scanning mode on the detection of root fracture and artifact perception.

methodsForty single-rooted premolars restored with NiCr and AgPd posts were divided into two groups: fractured and sound. All teeth were scanned using four CBCT scanning protocols varying FOV sizes (80 × 80 mm and 50 × 55 mm) and scanning modes (Standard and High Definition). The sample was positioned within the FOV in two pre-set positions (central and lateral) and in four positions established by the operator (quadrants). Detection of root fracture and artifact perception were assessed by two observers using 5-point and 4-point scales. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC values were calculated and compared by ANOVA two-way and Tukey's test. Chi-square and Fisher's exact test were used to assess artifact perception. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

resultsThe central position within the FOV presented higher sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC values and differed from the lateral position within the FOV for the studied metal posts (p<0.05). Quadrant 2 presented the best sensitivity, accuracy, and AUC values (p<0.05). The lateral position within the FOV, AgPd posts, quadrants 1 and 3 and protocols 1 (SM, 80 × 80) and 2 (HD, 80× 80) presented higher frequency of artifacts classified as "severe".

conclusionPositioning the object in the center or closer to the anterior periphery of the FOV while using a small FOV improved the detection of root fracture and decreased artifact perception.

Indexed as

Spiral Cone-Beam Computed TomographyTooth FracturesArtifactsCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansPerceptionTooth Rootartefactcone-beam computed tomographymetalssensitivity and specificitytooth fracture

Identifiers

PMID33565884
PMCPMC8404515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.