ArticleOral radiology2026
The impact of dental impression materials on metal artifacts in cone beam computed tomography examination.
Article in Oral radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metal Artifact Reduction in Oral Cavity MDCT Using Dental Overlays and the O-MAR Algorithm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Filling ability and blooming artifact expression in long-oval root canals: influence of CBCT device, endodontic sealer, and BAR filter.Oral 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo estimate the impact of different dental impression materials on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) metal artifacts at different resolutions and fields of view (FOVs).
methodsA mandible model with restored human teeth was created. Six dental materials were molded as teeth overlays with uniform thickness: A-silicones (Elite HD + , and Vonflex S Putty), Alginate (Tropicalgin), Pink wax (MBwax1), C-Silicon (Zetaplus) and Zinc-oxide (COE-PAK). The model alone (control) and with teeth covered with each material was scanned using CBCT Unite KAVO dent at two different FOVs-5 × 5 (S) and 6 × 8 cm (M), and three different resolutions: low (0.28-S; 0.32-M), standard (0.20-S; 0.30-M), and high (0.125-S; 0.20-M). Two experienced radiologists analyzed a single representative view of each dataset in ImageJ quantitatively-by conducting a histogram analysis within the selected regions of interest (ROI) and qualitatively (using a five-point Likert scale). The data were analyzed using standard one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Inter-rater reliability was examined.
resultsThe intraclass correlation coefficient for all quantitative measurements was between 0.806 and 0.996. Within FOV S, Vonflex S Putty showed significantly lower variance and range in grayscale values compared to the control at all resolution levels, while Zetaplus followed the same trend only at low resolution. As for FOV M, none of the tested materials significantly differed from the control in both variance and range. The qualitative analysis showed no significant differences when using overlays in comparison with uncovered teeth.
conclusionsAlthough without significant improvements in the image quality, covering teeth with dental materials quantitatively reduced artifacts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40960566What 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.