ArticleClinical oral implants research2025
Evaluation of Exomass-Related Artefacts Caused by Dental Implants of Different Materials in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scans: An Ex Vivo Study.
Article in Clinical oral implants research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are the detection and dimensions of peri-implant buccal bone defects influenced by different implant materials and their location? An experimental cone-beam computed tomography study.Journal of periodontology · 2026Article
- Digital Dental Radiology and Diagnostics-From 2D to 3D.Australian dental journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the influence of different dental implant materials within the exomass on the image quality in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIAL AND
methodsFive pig jaws were scanned using four CBCT devices, first without any dental implants, followed by scans with three dental implants of the same material-pure titanium, titanium-zirconium alloy, and zirconium dioxide. Two fields of view (FOVs) were used for each device to position the implants in the exomass of a small FOV and within a large FOV. Voxel values were obtained from tubes containing a radiopaque solution to calculate mean voxel value (MVV), voxel value inhomogeneity (VVI), and image noise (IN), which were compared across implant materials and FOVs using repeated measures analysis of variance (α = 0.05). Three observers independently scored image quality using a 5-point scale.
resultsIn general, MVV remained unaffected, except for a significant increase in the X800 device when titanium or titanium-zirconium alloy implants were in the exomass of a small FOV (p ≤ 0.05). A trend of increased VVI was observed when implants were in the exomass of a small FOV, with a greater effect for zirconium dioxide, followed by titanium-zirconium alloy and titanium. IN was higher when implants were in the exomass, especially for zirconium dioxide implants (p ≤ 0.05). Image quality perception was consistent overall, though zirconium dioxide implants in both FOVs resulted in diminished quality.
conclusionsThe presence of implants in the exomass can negatively affect CBCT image quality, with zirconium dioxide having the greatest impact.
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.