ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2023
Filtered back projection vs. iterative reconstruction for CBCT: effects on image noise and processing time.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Voxel Size and Field of View Influence on Periodontal Bone Assessment Using Four CBCT Systems: An Experimental Ex Vivo Analysis.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Enhancing Image Quality in Dental-Maxillofacial CBCT: The Impact of Iterative Reconstruction and AI on Noise Reduction-A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Gray values and noise behavior of cone-beam computed tomography machines-an in vitro study.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a Vendor-Agnostic Deep Learning Model for Noise Reduction and Image Quality Improvement in Dental CBCT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Impact of AI on Metal Artifacts in CBCT Oral Cavity Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Noise-Optimized CBCT Imaging of Temporomandibular Joints-The Impact of AI on Image Quality.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the effect of standard filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR) methods on CBCT image noise and processing time (PT), acquired with various acquisition parameters with and without metal artefact reduction (MAR).
methodsCBCT scans using the Midmark EIOS unit of a human mandible embedded in soft tissue equivalent material with and without the presence of an implant at mandibular first molar region were acquired at various acquisition settings (milliamperages [4mA-14mA], FOV [5 × 5, 6 × 8, 9 × 10 cm], and resolutions [low, standard, high] and reconstructed using standard FBP and IR, and with and without MAR. The processing time was recorded for each reconstruction. ImageJ was used to analyze specific axial images. Radial transaxial fiducial lines were created relative to the implant site. Standard deviations of the gray density values (image noise) were calculated at fixed distances on the fiducial lines on the buccal and lingual aspects at specific axial levels, and mean values for FBP and IR were compared using paired t-tests. Significance was defined as
resultsThe overall mean for image noise (± SD) for FBP was 198.65 ± 55.58 and 99.84 ± 16.28 for IR. IR significantly decreased image noise compared to FBP at all acquisition parameters (
conclusionsIR significantly reduces CBCT image noise compared to standard FBP without substantially increasing processing time.
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.