ArticleOrthodontics & craniofacial research2025
Dose Reduction by Field of View Optimisation in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography of Unilateral Alveolar Clefts.
Article in Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 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.
- Dose optimization in CBCT in dentistry: a survey among EADMFR members.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 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
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate how much the field of view (FOV) can be decreased while still depicting the necessary anatomical structures. A secondary aim was to assess how many incidental findings were missed with a reduced FOV. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, 170 CBCT volumes from children with a mean age of 9.4 years were collected. All CBCT had a FOV of 80 × 50 mm covering the maxilla. The present study analysed whether a smaller FOV can be used while still including necessary anatomical structures. Measurements of the minimal height and width that include vital anatomical structures were performed with two FOV reduction protocols: one smaller (includes the cleft, adjacent central incisor and adjacent canine) and one larger (includes both canines, nasal floor and the cleft).
resultsThe use of the larger protocol resulted in a FOV of 44.3 × 36.5 mm (95th percentile); for the smaller protocol, the FOV was 28.1 × 34.9 mm (95th percentile). In the larger protocol, incidental findings were missed in 22%. In the smaller protocol, 35% of the incidental findings were missed. However, most of these findings were irrelevant to the planning of the bone graft.
conclusionA FOV of 50 × 40 mm (41% dose reduction compared with the original FOV) is suggested to fully depict the cleft area, central incisors, nasal floor and both canines. A FOV of 35 × 40 mm (56% dose reduction compared with the original FOV) is suggested to depict the cleft and the ipsilateral canine and central incisor adjacent to the cleft.
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.