ArticleHead & face medicine2025
Optimization of the size and location of the FOVs for CBCT capture of impacted lower third molars.
Article in Head & face medicine, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is an established diagnostic tool for impacted wisdom teeth (third molars (3 M)) in proximity of the mandibular nerve canal. This study aims to define the minimum field-of-view (FOV) size and its localization to reduce radiation exposure. As reference, the chin rest of the CBCT device was used.
methodsThree-dimensional CBCT data sets were used to analyze the bilateral positions and dimensions of the wisdom teeth. A total of 215 wisdom teeth from a study population with a mean age of 21 years, including data from 82 male and 58 female patients, were mapped. By transformation into a common coordinate space using the device's chin rest as a joint denominator, the optimal size and location for uni- and bilateral capture of the wisdom teeth were determined, for both best-case and worst-case scenarios with regard to patient positioning.
resultsThe minimal FOVs for the lower 3 M capture were H 23.5 mm × R 35.4 mm in the best-case scenario assuming optimal patient positioning and H 35.4 mm × R 36.6 mm in the worst-case scenario with rotational deviation along the transversal axis. For the upper 3 M, the minimal FOVs were H 29.9 mm × R 29.2 mm in the best-case scenario and H 38.6 mm × R 35.6 mm in the worst-case scenario. Unilateral capture of both the upper and lower 3 M required FOV dimensions of H 51.7 mm × R 39.8 mm and H 44.8 mm × R 36.8 mm, respectively. For bilateral capture of all four 3 M, the best-case FOV was H 44.8 mm × R 84.8 mm and the worst-case FOV was H 51.7 mm × R 85.6 mm. DISCUSSION: This research provides indication-specific FOVs for uni- and bilateral imaging of the upper and lower 3 M. Taking into account optimal clinical practices for CBCT imaging, this study aims to propose clinically feasible FOV dimensions while meeting the technical specifications of commonly used CBCT devices. Clinical application of the results may help reduce radiation exposure of patients receiving CBCT imaging of the wisdom teeth. Transfer of the present results to other CBCT devices requires further research.
trial registrationThe study is registered in the German Trial Register with the number DRKS00026149, 2024/02/21.
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.