ArticleImaging science in dentistry2025
Effect of milliamperage on cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of bone grafts around dental implants.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of artifacts in cone-beam computed tomography from different intraradicular pins and cementation materials using different exposure protocols.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Bone grafts can be challenging to assess on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) examinations due to their discreet appearance and the potential introduction of metallic artifacts from implant screws. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of CBCT milliamperage (mA) on detecting bone graft dehiscence adjacent to titanium (Ti) and zirconia (Zr) implants. Materials and Methods: Twenty Ti and 20 Zr implants were installed in bovine rib blocks. Gaps of at least 2 mm were created between the implant and the bone and filled with particulate autogenous bone grafts. In half of the blocks, the gap was completely filled, while in the other half, the grafting material was removed up to the third implant thread. CBCT images were acquired at 4, 6.3, and 10 mA and evaluated by 5 observers to detect bone graft dehiscence. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. These values were then compared across various dental implant materials and mA levels using 2-way analysis of variance with a significance level of 5%. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in the diagnostic values for bone graft dehiscence between implant types ( Conclusion: Although a protocol with lower radiation exposure (that is, lower mA) could be employed, the use of CBCT for evaluating bone graft dehiscence adjacent to different types of dental implants should be approached with caution.
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.