Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39634571›Full record

ArticleCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2024

Comparison of the Effective Radiation Dose in the Region of the Facial Skull Between Multidetector CT, Dental Conebeam CT and Intraoperative 3D C-Arms.

Sebastian Pietzka, Anne Grieser, Karsten Winter, Alexander Schramm, Marc Metzger, Wiebke Semper-Hogg, Michael Grunert, Marcel Ebeling, Andreas Sakkas, Frank Wilde

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. 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

10 authors.

Sebastian PietzkaDepartment of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial-Surgery, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9559-2306
Anne GrieserDepartment of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial-Surgery, German Armed Forces Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Karsten WinterInstitute of Anatomy, Medical Faculty, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Alexander SchrammDepartment of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial-Surgery, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Marc MetzgerDepartment of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial-Surgery, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Wiebke Semper-HoggDepartment of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial-Surgery, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Michael GrunertDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8056-7290
Marcel EbelingDepartment of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial-Surgery, German Armed Forces Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Andreas SakkasDepartment of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial-Surgery, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Frank WildeDepartment of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial-Surgery, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Study Design: Experimental single-centre study of X-ray absorption using a phantom skull. Objective: This experimental study aimed to compare the radiation doses of different 3D imaging devices used in maxillofacial surgery, including one Multidetector CT (MDCT), two Conebeam CT (CBCT) and four intraoperative 3D C-arms. Methods: Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) were used to determine the absorbed radiation in an Alderson-Rando phantom skull. The phantom skull was positioned in the before mentioned seven devices and a defined 3D facial skull image was acquired. Subsequently, the TLD'S were read out and the effective doses (ED) and the organ doses (OD) were calculated and compared. Results: OD varied significantly between tissues as well as between the 3D X-ray devices. The OD of the 3D C-arms were significantly lower than those of all other devices. The OD of the CT, especially in the standard setting, was the highest. Only by special adjustments of the scan protocol regarding CMF requirements for traumatology, the MDCT could achieve almost equivalent doses as the two tested CBCT-scanners. The calculated effective doses were also lowest for the 3D C-arm devices (11.2 to 129.9 μSv). The ED of the MDCT were significant higher (284.52-844.97 μSv) than in all other devices. The ED of the CBCTs (173.7-184.9) were lower than for MDCT but still higher than those of the 3D C-arms. Conclusions: Intraoperative imaging using 3D C-arm devices is an effective method to verify reduction results in maxillofacial surgery intraoperatively with significantly lower ED than postoperatively CBCT and MDCT imaging.

Indexed as

3D C-arms3D-imagingconebeam CTCTeffective doseorgan dose

Identifiers

PMID39634571
PMCPMC11613283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.