ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2022
Comparative Evaluation of Artifacts Originated by Four Different Post Materials Using Different CBCT Settings.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Noise-optimized cone-beam computed tomographic imaging of different post materials with multiple settings: A comparative analysis.Imaging science in dentistry · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Performance of CBCT in Detecting Different Types of Root Fractures with Various Intracanal Post Systems.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
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 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images in the presence of four different post materials, obtained from different kVps with varying resolutions and varying metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms, differed in artifact estimation, and to compare tooth regions in terms of artifact value. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty premolar teeth were used in this study. Root canals were treated, and teeth were randomly distributed into four subgroups (
resultsMore artifacts were found in the middle third than in the cervical third (
conclusionThe best setting for radiographic follow-up of post materials on the Planmeca ProMax is 96 kVp with low resolution and high MAR; this setting produced one of the lowest effective doses. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study estimated the best scanning protocol by lowering the effective dose to a minimum level according to the "as low as reasonably achievable" principle, as well as assessing the tooth region and the post material generating the fewest artifacts, in order to prevent image interpretation challenges such as false-positive and false-negative results stemming from the deterioration of the visibility of the root canal due to perforation, fractures, and voids in the root canal region.
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.