Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39141184›Full record

ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2024

The accuracy of Eclipse AXB and AAA dose algorithms with dental amalgam.

Sam Potter, Carine Maxwell, James Rijken

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sam PotterIcon Cancer Centre, Windsor Gardens, SA, Australia. sam.potter@icon.team.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-9014-2835
Carine MaxwellSmiles Are Us, Park Holme, SA, Australia.
James RijkenIcon Cancer Centre, Windsor Gardens, SA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsDental AmalgamPhantoms, ImagingRadiotherapy DosageAnisotropyHumansRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedDental AmalgamDental amalgamDoseEclipseOverrideRestorations

Identifiers

PMID39141184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.