ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024
Effects of modern aesthetic dental fillings on proton therapy.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical considerations for handling implants in proton therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Insights from initial experience for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with proton therapy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: High-density dental fillings pose a non-negligible impact on head and neck cancer treatment. For proton therapy, stopping power ratio (SPR) prediction will be significantly impaired by the associated image artifacts. Dose perturbation is also inevitable, compromising the treatment plan quality. While plenty of work has been done on metal or amalgam fillings, none has touched on composite resin (CR) and glass ionomer cement (GIC) which have seen an increasing usage. Hence, this work aims to provide a detailed characterisation of SPR and dose perturbation in proton therapy caused by CR and GIC. Materials and methods: Four types of fillings were used: CR, Fuji Bulk (FB), Fuji II (FII) and Fuji IX (FIX). The latter three belong to GIC category. Measured SPR were compared with SPR predicted using single-energy computed tomography (SECT) and dual-energy computed tomography (DECT). Dose perturbation of proton beams with lower- and higher-energy levels was also quantified using Gafchromic films. Results: The measured SPR for CR, FB, FII and FIX were 1.68, 1.77, 1.77 and 1.76, respectively. Overall, DECT could predict SPR better than SECT. The lowest percentage error achieved by DECT was 19.7 %, demonstrating the challenge in estimating SPR, even for fillings with relatively lower densities. For both proton beam energies and all four fillings of about 4.5 mm thickness, the maximum dose perturbation was 3 %. Conclusion: This study showed that dose perturbation by CR and GIC was comparatively small. We have measured and recommended the SPR values for overriding the fillings in TPS.
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.