ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Optimization of dental implant imaging using photon-counting detector computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery: an ex vivo study.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine optimal reconstruction parameters for dental implant imaging using photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT), including ultra-high-resolution (UHR) images, virtual monoenergetic images (VMI), and iterative metal artifact reduction (iMAR). MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this ex vivo study, six pig mandibles were prepared with two titanium-based implants and imaged on a PCD-CT. Scans were reconstructed as UHR images and VMI from 70-190 keV at 10 keV increments with and without iMAR. Two independent readers qualitatively evaluated image quality and artifact severity using five-point visual rating scales (5 = excellent, no or minimal artifacts; and 1 = very poor, non-diagnostic, severe artifacts). Two readers quantified artifact severity, defined as the standard deviations in attenuation in regions of interest adjacent to the implants.
resultsUHR images without iMAR yielded high image quality (median 5 for both readers) with minor artifact severity (median 4 for both), whereas iMAR reduced image quality (median 3 for both). VMI without iMAR showed decreasing artifacts at higher energy levels. VMI at 120-130 keV achieved optimal image quality (median 5 for both readers at 120 keV, and medians 4 and 5 at 130 keV) with minimal artifacts (median 5 for both), whereas iMAR reduced quality. Quantitative artifact burden decreased with higher energy levels (from 200 HU at 70 keV to 113 HU at 190 keV), and no improvement was observed using iMAR.
conclusionsPCD-CT effectively reduces metal-induced artifacts in dental implant imaging, with UHR images and VMI at 120-130 keV providing optimal image quality, while reconstructions with iMAR offered no further benefit. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: PCD-CT provides excellent dental implant visualization while minimizing the impact of metal artifacts. KEY POINTS: In this ex vivo study, ultra-high-resolution images and virtual monoenergetic images at 120-130 keV from PCD-CT effectively reduce metal artifacts from dental implants. Effective artifact reduction offers excellent visualization of the bone-implant interface. Iterative metal artifact reduction (iMAR) did not provide additional benefit for visualization of the bone-implant interface.
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.