ArticleOral radiology2025
Development of a novel phantom for evaluating jawbone SPECT targeting medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw.
Article in Oral radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe developed a new phantom for technical evaluation of jawbone single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) examinations for medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). In this study, we verified the utility of the phantom by determining optimal image reconstruction parameters.
methodsWe evaluated the image quality and quantification in jawbone SPECT images obtained by different reconstruction parameters using the phantom. The phantom images were acquired using a SPECT/computed tomography (CT) system and then reconstructed using ordered-subset expectation maximization (OSEM) iterative reconstruction with resolution recovery as well as scatter and attenuation correction with various update numbers and Gaussian filter full width at half maximums (FWHMs). The percent contrast (%contrast) and absolute recovery coefficient were calculated to determine the optimal reconstruction parameters (OSEM
resultsIn the phantom study, %contrast and absolute recovery coefficient increased with increasing update numbers. As the Gaussian filter FWHM increased, the quantitative accuracy and image sharpness decreased. The parameter determined by the phantom study (OSEM
conclusionsWe developed a novel phantom and adapted it for technical evaluation. This study demonstrated the utility of the developed phantom.
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.