ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2022
CBCT image artefacts generated by implants located inside the field of view or in the exomass.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do Artifacts From Dental Implants Impair the Diagnosis of Simulated Internal Root Resorption in Cone-Beam CT?Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Effect of Phantom Containing Implants Angulation on the Amount of Metal Artifacts Around the Implants in CBCT Images.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- What Drives Metal Artifacts in CBCT? A Comparative Study of Detector Types and Metallic Object Configurations.Radiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Digital Dental Radiology and Diagnostics-From 2D to 3D.Australian dental journal · 2025Review
- Evaluation of Exomass-Related Artefacts Caused by Dental Implants of Different Materials in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scans: An Ex Vivo Study.Clinical oral implants research · 2025Article
- Effect of a metal artifact reduction algorithm on cone-beam computed tomography scans of titanium and zirconia implants within and outside the field of view.Imaging science in dentistry · 2024Article
- Effect of metal artefact reduction level on the assessment of dental implant positioning by cone-beam computed tomography.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Performance of different cone-beam computed tomography scan modes with and without metal artifact reduction in detection of recurrent dental caries under various restorative materials.Polish journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Quantitative analysis of zirconia and titanium implant artefacts in three-dimensional virtual models of multi-slice CT and cone beam CT: does scan protocol matter?Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2023Article
- 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
- Retrospective Analysis of Artifacts in Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images Used to Diagnose Chronic Rhinosinusitis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- CBCT artefact-burden of zirconia-based as compared to titanium implants for different beam energies: an analytical approach.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Effect of the Field of View Size on CBCT Artifacts Caused by the Presence of Metal Objects in the Exomass.International journal of dentistry · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare artefacts in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) arising from implants of different materials located either inside the field of view (FOV) or in the exomass, and to test different image-acquisition parameters to reduce them.
methodsCBCT scans of a human mandible prepared with either a titanium, titanium-zirconium, or zirconia implant were acquired with the Planmeca ProMax utilizing FOV sizes of 8 × 5 cm and 4 × 5 cm, which placed the implant inside the FOV (8 × 5 cm) or in the exomass (4 × 5 cm). The scanning parameters considered three conditions of metal artefact reduction (MAR), disabled, low, and high, and 2 kVp levels (80 and 90). The standard deviation (SD) of grey values of regions of interest was obtained. The effects of implant material, implant position, MAR condition, kVp level, and their interactions were evaluated by Analysis of Variance (α = 5%).
resultsThe zirconia implant produced the highest SD values (more heterogeneous grey values, corresponding to greater artefact expression), followed by titanium-zirconium, and titanium. In general, implants in the exomass produced images with higher SD values than implants inside the FOV. MAR was effective in decreasing SD values, especially from the zirconia implant, only when the implant was inside the FOV. Images with 80 kVp had higher SD values than those with 90 kVp, regardless of the other factors (
conclusionsImplants in the exomass lead to greater artefact expression than when they are inside the FOV. Special attention should be paid to scanning parameters that reduce metal-related artefacts, such as MAR activation and increasing kVp. This is especially important with a zirconia implant inside the FOV.
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.