ArticleImaging science in dentistry2024
Potential impact of metal crowns at varying distances from a carious lesion on its detection on cone-beam computed tomography scans with several protocols.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated the impact of artifacts generated by metal crowns on the detection of proximal caries lesions in teeth at various distances using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Additionally, the diagnostic impacts of tube current and metal artifact reduction (MAR) were investigated. Materials and Methods: Thirty teeth were arranged within 10 phantoms, each containing 1 first premolar, 1 second premolar, and 1 second molar. A sound first molar (for the control group) or a tooth with a metal crown was placed. Of the 60 proximal surfaces evaluated, 15 were sound and 45 exhibited enamel caries. CBCT scans were acquired using an OP300 Maxio unit (Instrumentarium, Tuusula, Finland), while varying the tube current (4, 8, or 12.5 mA) and enabling or disabling MAR. Five observers assessed mesial and distal surfaces using a 5-point scale. Multi-way analysis of variance was employed for data comparison, with Results: The area under the curve (AUC) varied from 0.40 to 0.60 (sensitivity: 0.28-0.45, specificity: 0.44-0.80). The diagnostic accuracy was not significantly affected by the presence of a metal crown, milliamperage, or MAR ( Conclusion: CBCT-based caries detection was not influenced by the presence of a metal crown, variations in milliamperage, or MAR activation. However, the diagnostic accuracy was low and was further diminished for surfaces near a crown. Consequently, CBCT is not recommended for the detection of incipient caries lesions.
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.