ArticlePloS one2022
Photoacoustic tomography versus cone-beam computed tomography versus micro-computed tomography: Accuracy of 3D reconstructions of human teeth.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development of Micro-CT-Based Anatomically Accurate Tooth Model for Finite Element Analysis of Composite Restorations.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
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
objectivesIn this in-vitro study, teeth were imaged using photoacoustic tomography (PAT), cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and micro-computed tomography (μ-CT). The study had aim: to identify the best wavelength for PAT images to determine the accuracy of the three imaging methods, and to determine whether PAT images of teeth can achieve acceptable reconstruction quality.
methodsNineteen human mandibular single-rooted incisors were extracted from patients with trauma or periodontitis. To determine the best wavelength for acquiring photoacoustic images, all 19 teeth were scanned in vitro with PAT, using different laser wavelengths between 680 and 960 nm. The images were analyzed using image analysis software. To assess the accuracy of PAT and compare it with the accuracy of CBCT, each tooth was also scanned in vitro using CBCT and the reference standard technique of μ-CT. Subsequently, three different three-dimensional models, one for each imaging technique, were created for each tooth. Finally, the three different three-dimensional models acquired for the same tooth were matched and analyzed regarding volume and surface.
resultsThe highest quality tooth images were achieved using the 680 nm wavelength, which showed the best contrast ratio. The full geometry of the dental root (μ-CT compared with PAT) could be visualized with relative standard deviations of 0.12 mm for the surface and -7.33 mm3 for the volume (n = 19). The full geometry of the dental root (μ-CT compared with CBCT) could be visualized with relative standard deviations of 0.06 mm for the surface and -14.56 mm3 for the volume (n = 19). The difference between the PAT-μ-CT group and CBCT-μ-CT group regarding the total average of the root surface area was not significant (p>0.06).
conclusionImages, which were acquired using PAT at 680nm showed the best contrast ration, enabling the identification of dentin, cementum and the dental pulp. No significant differences were found between the PAT-μ-CT group and CBCT-μ-CT group regarding the total average of the RSA and the total volume. Thus, three-dimensional reconstructions based on in-vitro PAT are already of acceptable reconstruction quality.
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.