ArticleImaging science in dentistry2025
Influence of cone-beam computed tomography reconstruction parameters on bone fractal dimension: A cross-sectional observational study.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image reconstruction parameters (slice thickness, noise filter application and orthogonal plane) on the calculation of bone fractal dimension and, based on those findings, to determine the optimal protocol for this type of assessment. Materials and Methods: The sample consisted of 18 patients who underwent CBCT scans of the mandible and bone densitometry examinations. Four mandibular regions of interest were selected from the scans, with various image reconstruction parameters applied. Fractal dimension was calculated using the box-counting method. Two independent observers performed the evaluations, and all analyses were conducted with a significance level of 5%. Results: The retromolar triangle and mandibular body regions did not demonstrate statistically significant differences when different tomographic reconstruction parameters were applied ( Conclusion: Operator-dependent parameters inherent to navigation software can influence fractal dimension analysis, with variations depending on the region of interest. The most appropriate parameters for this evaluation were identified as the sagittal plane with a 1 mm slice thickness. Among the regions assessed, the mandibular body was found to be the most suitable for fractal dimension analysis in CBCT.
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.