Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40782315›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2025

Dental photon-counting computed tomography for the assessment of Peri-Implant structures.

Maurice Ruetters, Christian Mertens, Holger Gehrig, Sinan Sen, Ti-Sun Kim, Hans-Peter Schlemmer, Stefan Schoenberg, Matthias Froelich, Marc Kachelrieß, Stefan Sawall

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 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

10 authors.

Maurice Ruetters *Department of Operative Dentistry, Heidelberg University, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Maurice.ruetters@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Christian Mertens *Department of Oral- and Maxillofacial Surgery, Heidelberg University, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Holger GehrigDepartment of Operative Dentistry, Heidelberg University, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sinan SenDepartment of Orthodontics, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Arnold- Heller-Straße 3, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Ti-Sun KimDepartment of Operative Dentistry, Heidelberg University, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hans-Peter SchlemmerDepartment of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Stefan SchoenbergDepartment of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Mannheim, Theodor-Kurz-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
Matthias FroelichDepartment of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Mannheim, Theodor-Kurz-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
Marc KachelrießMedical Faculty, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Stefan SawallMedical Faculty, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the diagnostic performance of photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT) in the imaging of peri-implant bone structures and to compare it quantitatively and qualitatively to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

methodsThirty titanium implants were placed in ten porcine mandibles. CBCT and PCCT scans were acquired and compared quantitatively regarding image noise and CT-values. Additionally bone thickness was compared to a gold standard at 60 standardized locations by one calibrated investigator in both modalities. Measurement accuracy was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. Two experienced raters performed qualitative assessments of anatomic structures around the implant using a 5-point visibility scale. These included the bone-implant interface around the implant surface, the bone at the implant shoulder as well as the oral and vestibular bone lamella. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using ICC.

resultsAcross all evaluated implants, CT-values in a soft-tissue region of interest adjacent to the implant increased by 11.7 ± 3.9% for CBCT acquisitions, whereas they decreased by 5.3 ± 1.3% for PCCT acquisitions. Similarly, image noise in the respective ROIs is increased by a factor of 63 ± 13% in case of CBCT acquisitions and only by 23 ± 5% in case of PCCT acquisitions. Bone thickness deviations were smaller for PCCT (mean ± SD: 0.06 ± 0.08 mm) than for CBCT (0.39 ± 0.34 mm). Qualitative assessments consistently favored PCCT (p < 0.05) with excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC > 0.75 ) in almost all categories.

conclusionsPCCT enables superior visualization of peri-implant bone structures with fewer artifacts and improved diagnostic accuracy.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsTomography, X-Ray ComputedAnimalsCone-Beam Computed TomographyMandiblePhotonsSwineDental Implants3D dental imagingCBCTImage qualityImplant diagnosticsMetal artifactsPeri-implant bonePhoton-counting CT

Identifiers

PMID40782315
PMCPMC12335417

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.