ArticleJournal of dental sciences2024
Volumetric analysis of artifacts from fiducial markers under cone beam computed tomography.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 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.
- Artifacts of orthodontic materials on cone beam computed tomography images.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Matching accuracy between CT images and intraoral surface scans using glass-ceramic markers compared to gutta-percha markers.International journal of implant dentistry · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abstract Background/purpose: Computer aided implant surgery has been widely adopted in modern implant dentistry. However, absence of reliable anatomic landmarks for superimposing digital data sets for patients with terminal dentition or complete edentulism remained challenging. Utilization of additional fiducial markers intraorally as the reference points for the improvement of accuracy became crucial in implant digital workflow. Nevertheless, the choice of the material for fiducial markers should present the least radiographic artifacts under cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for better accuracy. The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the volume of radiographic artifacts generated through different materials under the image of CBCT. Materials and methods: Fifteen dental materials were selected and configured into cubic shape. All the materials were scanned initially with the laboratory scanner as the control groups. The samples were scanned by CBCT machine as test groups and the volume of artifact generated under CBCT images were compared and analyzed using 3D modeling software. Results: Eleven out of fifteen materials could be recognized under CBCT images. Volumetric analysis reported that statistically significant differences among the materials could be noted, and the flowable composite resin presented the least volumetric difference. Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, flowable composite resin, and gutta-percha presented the least deformation and maintained their cubic shapes. Conclusion: The results of the present study may imply that flowable composite resin compared to all ceramic materials, amalgam and gutta-percha may be a preferable choice when utilized as fiducial markers under CBCT images.
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.