ArticleClinical oral investigations2022
Comparison of the expression of the volumetric alteration artifact in cylindrical and triangular fields of view in two cone-beam computed tomography devices.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of Artifact Expression in Zirconia and Graphene Crowns in CBCT Images From Different Systems.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Position and variation in the number of high-density objects influence the expression of volumetric alteration artifacts in cone-beam computed tomographic images.Imaging science in dentistry · 2025Article
- Does cone-beam CT convex triangular field of view influence the image shape distortion of high-density materials?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
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the expression of the volumetric alteration (VA) artifact between cylindrical and convex triangular fields of view (FOVs) using high-density materials in different positions in two cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices. MATERIALS AND
methodsCylinders of five high-density materials (amalgam, chromium-cobalt, gutta-percha, titanium, and zirconium) with known physical volume were individually submitted to CBCT acquisition in four positions inside a polymethylmethacrylate phantom using two different FOV shapes (convex triangular and cylindrical) on the Veraviewepocs® R100 (R100) and Veraview® X800 (X800) devices. Two oral radiologists obtained the tomographic volumes by segmenting each cylinder. The difference between the tomographic and physical volumes corresponded to the VA. These values were analyzed by intraclass correlation coefficient and analysis of variance for repeated measures with Tukey post hoc test (α = 5%).
resultsThe FOV influenced the VA only in the X800 device (p = 0.014): the VA in the triangular FOV was greater than in the cylindrical FOV. The VA in the triangular FOV of the X800 device was greater than the R100 device (p < 0.0001). The material influenced the expression of the VA only in the R100 device (p < 0.0001); gutta-percha presented the highest VA, being underestimated, and differing from the other materials (p < 0.01).
conclusionThe triangular FOV increased the VA of high-density materials in the X800 device. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It is important to know if there is an influence on the volumetric alteration artifact of dental materials due to the different image formation geometry in the convex triangular FOV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34324084What 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.