ArticleBMC oral health2025
Efficacy of two radiographic algorithms for detection of peri-implant bone defects on cone-beam computed tomography scans.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- Assessment of bone density around impacted maxillary canine teeth by gray value analysis on cone-beam computed tomography images.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Impact of advanced noise reduction algorithms on the diagnostic accuracy of vertical root fractures in cone-beam computed tomography: An evaluation of the influence of intracanal post types.Imaging science in dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly detection of peri-implant bone defects can improve long-term durability of dental implants. By the advances in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanners and introduction of new algorithms, it is important to find the most efficient protocol for detection of bone defects. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of metal artifact reduction (MAR) and advanced noise reduction (ANR) algorithms for detection of peri-implant bone defects. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this in vitro study, 40 titanium implants were placed in 7 sheep mandibles. Crestal, apical, and Full defects (n = 10 from each type) were created around the implants, and 10 implants were also placed as controls. CBCT scans were obtained in four modes: with MAR, with ANR, with both MAR and ANR, and without any filter. Totally, 28 scans were obtained and evaluated by a radiologist and a maxillofacial surgeon. The observers recorded their observations in a checklist, and data were analyzed by SPSS version 21 using the kappa coefficient of agreement, sensitivity and specificity values, area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), intraclass correlation coefficient, t-test and paired t-test (P < 0.05).
resultsThe inter-observer agreement was high for detection of all defects in all modes except with ANR. No significant difference was found in AUC and diagnostic accuracy of different scan modes (P > 0.05). The most common diagnostic error was related to misdiagnosis of control group with full defect with ANR filter, such that the existing bone was not detected. Defect depth was averagely over-estimated while defect length was under-estimated. Correct diagnosis of defects had the highest frequency when both filters were on.
conclusionThe diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity for detection of different defect types were not significantly different in different scan modes but activation of ANR filter significantly decreased the specificity and positive predictive value compared with no use of filter.
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.