Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40169668›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Correction of metal artefacts around orthodontic mini-implants - a micro-CT study in the rat tail model.

Robert Kerberger, Giulia Brunello, Nicole Rauch, Dieter Drescher, Bert van Rietbergen, Kathrin Becker

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Robert KerbergerDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 14197, Berlin, Germany.
Giulia BrunelloDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 14197, Berlin, Germany.
Nicole RauchDepartment of Oral Surgery, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Moorenstraße 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Dieter DrescherDepartment of Orthodontics, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Moorenstraße 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Bert van RietbergenOrthopaedic Biomechanics, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Groene Loper 3, Eindhoven, 5612 AE, The Netherlands.
Kathrin BeckerDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 14197, Berlin, Germany. kathrin.becker@charite.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Micro-CT enables volumetric analysis of peri-implant tissue, but grey value alterations due to metal artefacts can impair analyses. This study aimed to assess to which extent peri-implant grey values are affected by metal artefacts at increasing distance to the implant, and whether mathematical correction is possible. In nine rats, two Ti6Al4V orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs), 0.8 mm in diameter and 3.0 mm in length, were placed in a single tail vertebra. Micro-CT scans were performed before (T0) and after (T1) careful removal of the OMIs. Consecutive micro-CT scans were registered and differences in local grey values were computed at increasing distance to the implant (10.4 μm to 405.6 μm). Correction coefficient (CC) computation was performed using a smoothing spline fit, with the distance to the implant and the grey value difference as independent and dependent variable, respectively. To validate the effectiveness of the CC, the amount of calcified bone volume per total volume (BV/TV) was assessed within a standardized volume of interest (VOI) reaching up to 1 mm around the OMIs before and after the application of CC, and the T1-T0 differences between corrected and uncorrected scans were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The grey value difference between uncorrected T0 and T1 scans was low in proximity to the implant (32.7%±6.11%) and improved at a distance of at least 100 μm (93.4%±4.46%). CC computation revealed a satisfactory fit (R

Indexed as

ArtifactsDental ImplantsMetalsOrthodontic Anchorage ProceduresTailX-Ray MicrotomographyAlloysAnimalsMaleRatsTitaniumAlloysDental ImplantsMetalsTitaniumtitanium alloy (TiAl6V4)Bone morphometryMetal artefact correctionMicro-CTPeri-implant artefactsPeri-implant boneRat tail model

Identifiers

PMID40169668
PMCPMC11962067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.