Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41399012›Full record

ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2025

Exploring Dental Anatomy: An Ex Vivo Comparative Study Between Photon-Counting Detector CT and Cone-Beam CT.

Adib Al-Haj Husain, Fabian Benz, Victor Mergen, Silvio Valdec, Sebastian Winklhofer, Hatem Alkadhi, Harald Essig, Thomas Frauenfelder, Rubens Spin-Neto, Bernd Stadlinger

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Adib Al-Haj HusainDepartment of Cranio-Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7895-1461
Fabian BenzClinic of Cranio-Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Victor MergenDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Silvio ValdecClinic of Cranio-Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Sebastian WinklhoferDepartment of Neuroradiology, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Hatem AlkadhiDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Harald EssigDepartment of Cranio-Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Thomas FrauenfelderDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Rubens Spin-NetoOral Radiology, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9562-0610
Bernd StadlingerClinic of Cranio-Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this ex vivo study was to assess the performance of photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) compared with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) at equivalent radiation doses for detecting and evaluating mandibular and dental anatomical structures in porcine cadavers. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis intermodal comparative study evaluated imaging protocols at three radiation dose levels (high: 360 μSv, standard: 145 μSv, low: 20 μSv) in six porcine cadaver heads, analyzing 12 CBCT and 18 PCD-CT volumes. Two blinded observers assessed image quality, artifact susceptibility, and diagnostic interpretability using a 5-point Likert scale (5 = highest, 1 = lowest). Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and interobserver reliability, assessed by weighted kappa (κ) analysis.

resultsPCD-CT either matched or outperformed CBCT at standard- and low-dose protocols, demonstrating superior anatomy coverage, density, contrast, and less artifact susceptibility. High- and standard-dose protocols achieved perfect scores 5 (SD = 0). At low-dose levels, PCD-CT showed slightly lower scores but still outperformed CBCT. PCD-CT showed minimal artifacts, with no significant artifacts in high and standard doses. Inter- and intra-reader reliability was higher for PCD-CT (κ: 0.694-1; p < 0.001) compared to CBCT (0.55-0.916; p < 0.001), with the difference being largest at low doses.

conclusionPCD-CT outperforms CBCT in diagnostic interpretability and artifact reduction across various radiation dose levels, offering a promising alternative for dentomaxillofacial imaging that aligns with the ALADAIP principle.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyMandibleToothAnimalsArtifactsCadaverPhotonsRadiation DosageReproducibility of ResultsSwinecone‐beam computed tomographydental anatomyphoton‐counting detector computed tomographyradiation protection

Identifiers

PMID41399012
PMCPMC12705903

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.