ArticleHeliyon2024
Accuracy of implant height and width measurement with triaxial rotation method based on cone-beam CT.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Objective: To investigate the accuracy of implant height and width measurement in the mandibular and maxillary first molar region based on cone-beam CT (CBCT) data, and to establish an accurate method for bone measurement in the implant region. Materials and methods: CBCT images of 122 patients with implant in mandibular or maxillary first molar region were retrospectively collected. Two methods were used to measure sagittal height (SH), coronal height (CH), sagittal width (SW), and coronal width (CW) of implants. Method 1 (general method): the images were analyzed using the built-in software NNT 9.0 software. SHl, CHl, SWl, and CWl were measured on the reconstructed sagittal and coronal based on the radiologist's own experience. Method 2 (triaxial rotation method): the raw data were demonstrated in Expert mode of NNT 9.0 software, in which the coronal axis and sagittal axis were rotated paralleling to the long axis of the implant for reconstruction, and then SH2, CH2, SW2, and CW2 were measured on the reconstructed sagittal and coronal images. The results of two methods were compared with the actual implant size (H0, W0). Paired T-test was performed for statistical analysis. Dahlberg formula was used to check the measurement error. Results: For method 1, there was no significant differences between SHl and H0 (P > 0.05), but significant differences between CHl and H0, SWl and W0, and CWl and W0 (P < 0.05). For method 2, there were no significant differences between all measurements and actual size (P > 0.05). The random error range measured using Dahlberg formula was 0.157-1.171 mm for general method and 0.017-0.05 mm for triaxial rotation method. Conclusion: The triaxial rotation method is accurate for implant height and width measurements on CBCT images and could be used in pre-operatively bone height and width measurement of potential implant sites.
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.