ArticleRadiology research and practice2026
What Drives Metal Artifacts in CBCT? A Comparative Study of Detector Types and Metallic Object Configurations.
Article in Radiology research and practice, 2026. 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.
- What Drives Metal Artifacts in CBCT? A Comparative Study of Detector Types and Metallic Object Configurations.Radiology research and practice · 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
Background: One major limitation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems is the presence of metallic artifacts. Given the widespread use of metals in dental treatments and the diversity of CBCT designs, this study aimed to compare the effect of aligned and lateral offset detectors on metal artifact formation within the field of view (FOV). Methods: This in vitro cross-sectional study evaluated four CBCT systems-two with aligned and two with lateral offset detectors. A dry human skull phantom was scanned with various metallic objects (a titanium implant, a tooth with a chrome-cobalt post and PFM crown, and a tooth with an amalgam restoration) placed in the FOV in two orientations (same vs. opposite side of the region of interest [ROI]) and in three quantities (1, 2, or 3 objects). A polypropylene tube filled with dipotassium phosphate solution was placed in the right first premolar socket to simulate alveolar bone. Ten axial slices were analyzed using 1.5-mm circular ROIs. Mean gray value (MGV) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated, where higher MGV and lower SD indicate lower artifact severity. Data were analyzed with four-way weighted analysis of variance (ANOVA), and multiple comparisons were performed using Games-Howell, Bonferroni, and Results: Detector type, material, object location, and number significantly affected artifact formation. Aligned detectors showed significantly higher MGV and lower SD, indicating reduced artifact severity ( Conclusion: Detector type, metal composition, and the number and position of metallic objects within the FOV significantly influence artifact formation in CBCT images. Optimizing these factors can reduce artifacts and improve image quality.
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.