ArticleJournal of oral & maxillofacial research
Repetition Rate of Scanning Due to Motion Artefacts in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: a Retrospective Study.
Article in Journal of oral & maxillofacial research. 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.
- XACT-guided interventional procedures: A feasibility study.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Challenges in Pedicatric Orthodontics and Radiology: Evidence from Recent Studies and Implications for Clinical Practice: A Narrative Review.Galen medical journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this retrospective study was to investigate the incidence of repeated cone-beam computed tomography scans due to motion artefacts in a Turkish subpopulation. Material and Methods: A total of 6364 patients' cone-beam computed tomography data were analysed retrospectively to identify repeated scans due to motion artefacts. Patients were divided into eight age groups: 1) < 10-year-olds, 2) 10 to 19-year-olds, 3) 20 to 29-year-olds, 4) 30 to 39-year-olds, 5) 40 to 49-year-olds, 6) 50 to 59-year-olds, 7) 60 to 69-year-olds, and 8) > 70 year-olds. Chi-square test was applied to evaluate the repetition rate of scans by age and gender groups. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Repeated scans due to motion artefacts were observed in 1.96% of the patients. The repetition rate of scans was significantly higher in males than in females (P = 0.006). Furthermore, the repetition rate of scans was significantly higher in patients < 10 years old compared to the other age groups. However, there was no significant difference in the repetition rate of scans due to motion artefacts among the other age groups (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The present findings suggest that patient age and gender are associated with repeated cone-beam computed tomography scans due to motion artefacts. Males and children under the age of 10 had more common repeated scans due to motion artefacts.
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.