ArticleDentistry journal2024
Assessing the Volume of the Head of the Mandibular Condyle Using 3T-MRI-A Preliminary Trial.
Article in Dentistry journal, 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to potentially harmful exposure to X-rays, condylar growth in response to orthodontic treatment is poorly studied. To overcome this limitation, here, the authors have proposed high-resolution MRI as a viable alternative to CBCT for clinical 3D assessment of TMJ. A male subject underwent both MRI and CBCT scans. The obtained three-dimensional reconstructions of the TMJ were segmented and superimposed by a semiautomatic algorithm developed in MATLAB R2022a. The condylar geometries were reconstructed using dedicated software for image segmentation. Two geometrical parameters, i.e., the total volume and surface of the single condyle model, were selected to quantify the intraclass and interclass variability from the mean of each DICOM series (CBCT and MRI). The final comparison between the reference standard model of CBCT and 3T MRI showed that the former was more robust in terms of reproducibility, while the latter reached a higher standard deviation compared to CBCT, but these values were similar between the operators and clinically not significant. Within the inherent limitation of image reconstruction on MRI scans due to the current lower resolution of this technique, the method proposed here could be considered as a nucleus for developing future completely automatic AI algorithms, owing to its great potential and satisfactory consistency among different times and operators.
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.