ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Expression of artefacts from different orthodontic brackets and wires in cone beam computed tomography scans-an in vitro study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison between dual-angle periapical technique and cone-beam computed tomography in the identification of a second canal in mandibular incisors in the presence of a zirconia implant: An in vitro study.Imaging science in dentistry · 2026Article
- Assessment of collum angle and alveolar bone plate thickness relative to tooth inclination in central incisors using CBCT: a retrospective cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Article
- Efficacy of a Metal Artifact Reduction Algorithm in CBCT Images of Teeth With Ceramic Brackets With/Without Coated Archwires: An In Vitro Study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate artefacts produced by different orthodontic brackets and wires in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo dental arches were made using extracted human teeth and plaster. Three pairs of acetate plates containing different brackets - metallic, ceramic, and self-ligating ceramic with NiTi clip - along with a control plate (i.e., without brackets) were prepared. Wire changes (NiTi and steel) were made during CBCT acquisitions, performed with a fixed exposure protocol. Axial slices were selected for mean gray values and standard deviation measurement in three regions of interest (buccal, lingual, and tooth). Noise and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated and compared among the different brackets and wires by ANOVA with a significance level of 5%.
resultsOverall, the buccal and tooth region were mostly affected by the metallic and self-ligating brackets, showing higher noise, and lower CNR (p < 0.05). On the other hand, less impact of ceramic brackets in the image quality was observed (p ≥ 0.05). The lingual region did not show expressive differences among the brackets and wire combinations (p ≥ 0.05). The presence of wire associated with the brackets did not worsen image quality (p ≥ 0.05).
conclusionsIn conclusion, metallic and self-ligating brackets have greater artefact expression than ceramic brackets. The wire did not influence image quality. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: One should pay attention to the type of brackets when requesting a CBCT scan during treatment, as metallic and self-ligating brackets may express greater artefacts than ceramic brackets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39060664What 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.