ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Computed tomography image quality parameter settings for the design and manufacture of craniofacial implants.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCraniofacial disfigurements impact a person’s psychosocial well-being and can bring about anxiety, severe depression and poor self-esteem. Patients seek restorative medical interventions to improve their aesthetic appearance; these interventions, in the form of custom-made implants, require high-quality, accurate computed tomography (CT) data relating to patient anatomy. However, limited information exists about suitable parameter settings for high-quality CT images for implant design. Therefore, this study suggests CT parameter settings that should be considered when imaging patients for implant manufacturing.
methodsFrom a collection of 35 stereolithography (STL) files supplied by the Centre for Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing at Central University of Technology, Free State, 11 high-image-quality STLs were identified. Because of restricted access to original DICOM files, STLs were reverse engineered from metadata by scanning a Catphan® 500 phantom to create representative DICOM files. Image quality values for a range of indicators (pixel size, contrast, uniformity, slice thickness and noise) of the DICOM files were calculated with the Smári program. Index A (original value index), Index B (transformed value index), Index C (ranking index), and Index D (confirmation index) were calculated using the reports of representative files. Indexes A, B and C were used to identify the five top-ranking DICOM files for Bone and BonePlus algorithms, which were then confirmed using Index D.
resultsImage quality indicator values were, overall, similar for the two algorithms. The pixel sizes for the two algorithms were identical. The indicator value ranges for contrast, uniformity and slice thickness were relatively similar for the two algorithms, while the range for noise for the BonePlus algorithm was wider than for the Bone algorithm. Proposed parameter settings identified for real-world testing are 120 kV, Auto mA or manual mA selection (200–490), field of view 20–26 cm and a slice thickness range of 0.625–1.25 mm.
conclusionOnce tested under conditions that more closely mimic a real-world clinical setting, these CT parameter settings may result in a better-fitting implant and potentially eliminate the need for repeat imaging.
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.