ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Assessment of Differences in the Dimensions of Mandible Condyle Models in Fan- versus Cone-Beam Computer Tomography Acquisition.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of Orbital Morphology Accuracy in 3D Models Based on Cone-Beam and Fan-Beam Computed Tomography Scans for Reconstructive Planning.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Assessment of the Mandibular Condylar Volume in Different Skeletal Patterns: A Retrospective Study in Adult Patients.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Modern treatment in the field of head and neck surgery aims for the least invasive therapy and places great emphasis on restorative treatment, especially in the case of injury and deformation corrective surgery. More and more often, surgeons use CAD/CAM (Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing) tools in their daily practice in the form of models, templates, and computer simulations of planning. These tools are based on DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) files derived from computed tomography. They can be obtained from both fan-beam (FBCT) and cone-beam tomography (CBCT) acquisitions, which are subsequently segmented in order to transform them into a 1-bit 3D model, which is the basis for further CAD processes.
aimEvaluation of differences in the dimensions of mandible condyle models in fan- versus cone-beam computer tomography for surgical treatment purposes.
methods499 healthy condyles were examined in CT-based 3D models of Caucasians aged 8-88 years old. Datasets were obtained from 66 CBCT and 184 FBCT axial image series (in each case, imaging both mandible condyles resulted in the acquisition of 132 condyles from CBCT and 368 condyles from FBCT) and were transformed into three-dimensional models by digital segmentation. Eleven different measurements were performed to obtain information whether there were any differences between FBCT and CBCT models of the same anatomical region.
results7 of 11 dimensions were significantly higher in FBCT versus lower in CBCT (
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.