ArticleImaging science in dentistry2025
Evaluation and comparison of contrast-to-noise ratio generated by lithium disilicate and zirconia: A phantom 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Matching accuracy between CT images and intraoral surface scans using glass-ceramic markers compared to gutta-percha markers.International journal of implant dentistry · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated how restorative materials-specifically, lithium disilicate (LD) (IPS e.max; Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein, Switzerland) and zirconia-affect the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging. Materials and Methods: CNR was compared between LD and zirconia (NexxZr T; Sagemax Bioceramics, Federal Way, USA; and Zirlux Transitions; Zahn Dental, New York, USA) using 2 CBCT machines-Planmeca ProMax 3D Mid 2015 (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) and PreXion 3D Excelsior (PreXion Inc., San Mateo, USA)-under multiple exposure settings, with and without metal artifact reduction (MAR). Four cylindrical ingots were scanned in a saline phantom under 10 conditions (Planmeca: Low, Normal, High, ±MAR; PreXion: Rapid, Standard, HD, UHD). CNR was calculated in ImageJ (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA) and analyzed with the paired t-test. Results: LD showed the highest CNR on Planmeca without MAR and across all PreXion settings. With MAR on Planmeca, zirconia outperformed LD. For zirconia, CNR improved with larger voxel sizes and MAR, whereas for LD it was optimal with smaller voxel sizes and MAR. Optimal Planmeca settings were Low (400 µm)+MAR for zirconia and High (150 µm)+MAR for LD. On PreXion, Rapid (200 µm) favored zirconia, while HD (100 µm) favored LD. Conclusion: CBCT settings should be tailored to the restorative material, diagnostic need, and radiation dose. For zirconia, larger voxel sizes with MAR enhance CNR; for LD, smaller voxel sizes with MAR are optimal. These findings support imaging optimization for patients with dental restorations.
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.