ArticleHead & face medicine2022
Does the size of an object containing dental implant affect the expression of artifacts in cone beam computed tomography imaging?
Article in Head & face medicine, 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.
- Effect of Phantom Containing Implants Angulation on the Amount of Metal Artifacts Around the Implants in CBCT Images.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Enhancing image quality in computed tomography angiography follow-ups after endovascular aneurysm repair: a comparative study of reconstruction techniques.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- Article
- Exploring the Importance of Corticalization Occurring in Alveolar Bone Surrounding a Dental Implant.Journal of clinical 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtifacts fault image quality but handling several factors can affect it. This study was conducted to investigate the effect of object size on artifacts in cone-beam computed tomography systems.
methodsFive phantoms, each containing a titanium implant in a sheep bone block, were fabricated of various sizes ranging from XS to XL: The M phantom was the same size as the device's field of view (FOV). The L and XL phantoms were 20 and 40% larger than the FOV while the S and XS phantoms were 20 and 40% smaller than FOV, respectively. Ballistic gelatin was used to fill the phantoms. Phantoms were scanned by NewTom VGI and HDXWill Q-FACE. The mean and standard deviation (SD) of gray values in each 120 ROI was obtained by OnDemand software. The contrast to noise ratio (CNR) was also calculated.
resultsThe gray value in S and M phantoms were more homogenous. The lowest SD value (10.20) was found in S phantom. The highest value for SD (125.16) was observed in XL phantom. The lowest (4.47) and highest (9.92) CNR were obtained in XL and S phantoms, respectively. HDXWill Q-FACE recorded a higher SD and a lower CNR than NewTom VGI (P < 0.05).
conclusionObject dimensions of the FOV size or up to 20% smaller provided better image quality. Since the dimensions of soft tissue in most patients are larger than the selective FOV, it is recommended that in CBCT artifacts studies, an object with dimensions closer to the patient's dimensions be used to better relate the results with the clinical condition, because the sample dimensions affect the amount of artifacts.
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.