ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2024
The accuracy of Eclipse AXB and AAA dose algorithms with dental amalgam.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 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.
- Impact of differences in computed tomography value-electron density/physical density conversion tables on calculate dose in low-density areas.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-density materials used for dental restorations are poorly defined in CT imaging due to scanner limitations. Studies have established that Eclipse offers poor agreement with delivered dose in situations involving high-density material. Defining the accuracy of dose algorithms in situations involving high-density overrides would improve clinical outcomes both for target coverage and OAR sparing. Dental amalgam was placed within a solid water phantom and measurements were taken at 1 cm increments beneath the amalgam down to a depth of 6 cm. Exposed film was compared with Eclipse Treatment Planning system (TPS) calculations on a CT of the experimental setup. The amalgam was overridden with a range of HU values and material selections for dose calculation. AXB performs poorly at describing depth dose downstream of Amalgam, regardless of the override material selected. Applying the known mass density with the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) predicts an average of 1.8% and 2.8% for 6 MV and 10 MV beams. The closest agreement achieved using the Acuros XB (AXB) was overriding with stainless steel, which predicted approximately 1.1% and 1.8% above measured dose for 6 MV and 10 MV respectively. Without overriding the density of amalgam, AAA and AXB return depth dose predictions of 7.3% and 5.8% above film measurement for a 6 MV and 7.6% and 6.5% for 10 MV static beams. Applying override options to a clinical case using an anthropomorphic phantom showed using AXB with Stainless Steel as amalgam override returns the same results as AAA with mass density applied for amalgam. Both of these were in close agreement to the TPS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39141184What 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.