ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2025
Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography with photon-counting detector computed tomography for dental implant surgery.
Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Photon-Counting Detector CT-Based Virtual Monoenergetic Imaging With Metal Artifact Reduction for Endodontic Diagnostics.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Optimization of dental implant imaging using photon-counting detector computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery: an ex vivo study.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Photon-Counting CT for Diagnosing Vertical Root Fractures in Teeth With Metal Posts: An Ex Vivo Comparative Analysis With Four CBCT Devices.International endodontic journal · 2026Article
- Virtual monoenergetic imaging for metal artifact reduction in dental implant surgery using photon-counting detector computed tomography.Imaging science in dentistry · 2026Article
- Photon-counting detector vs. cone-beam CT in endodontics: a study of simulated endodontic conditions, treatments, and associated complications.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Exploring Dental Anatomy: An Ex Vivo Comparative Study Between Photon-Counting Detector CT and Cone-Beam CT.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
- Postoperative assessment of fracture reduction and osteosynthesis materials using photon-counting detector CT in maxillofacial trauma - a pilot study.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Article
- Opportunistic Diagnostics of Dental Implants in Routine Clinical Photon-Counting CT Acquisitions.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) with photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) at equivalent radiation doses, focusing on qualitative and quantitative parameters relevant to dental implant surgery.
methodsThis ex vivo comparative study of porcine specimens assessed five imaging protocols with both CBCT and PCD-CT at three effective radiation dose levels (high: 360µSv, standard: 145µSv, low: 20µSv) to evaluate image quality, artifact burden, metal artifact susceptibility, and quantitative bone measurements in the mandibular region. Three blinded readers analyzed the data using a 5-point Likert scale (5 = highest to 1 = lowest rating) and performed linear bone measurements at implant planning sites. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and inter-reader reliability assessment using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
resultsEach reader evaluated 30 data sets (12 CBCT, 18 PCD-CT), with 24 implant planning sites per imaging protocol. High-dose PCD-CT demonstrated the best image quality and diagnostic interpretability (4.89 ± 0.27), followed by standard-dose PCD-CT and CBCT (4.50 ± 0.73; 4.33 ± 0.61), with low-dose protocols showing intermediate quality with higher artifact burden. In comparison to CBCT, PCD-CT demonstrated superior performance in reducing implant-induced artifacts across all protocols. Quantitative bone measurements showed minimal variability, meeting clinical precision requirements for computer-assisted implant surgery. Both qualitative (ICCs:0.70-0.89; p < 0.001) and quantitative (ICCs:0.79-1; p < 0.001) analyses demonstrated high reliability, regardless of the reader's experience.
conclusionsPCD-CT demonstrated superior image quality and reduced artifacts compared with CBCT at all radiation dose levels. These findings highlight PCD-CT's potential to enhance implant planning and improve clinical outcomes with reduced radiation exposure while maintaining diagnostic accuracy.
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.