ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2026
Do Artifacts From Dental Implants Impair the Diagnosis of Simulated Internal Root Resorption in Cone-Beam CT?
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the influence of artifacts generated by dental implants on the diagnosis of simulated internal root resorption (IRR) in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), considering implant number and composition. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-five single-rooted teeth were allocated into two groups: with simulated IRR (n = 15) and without IRR (n = 20). IRR was simulated using 37% hydrochloric acid for 3 h. Teeth were inserted into a human maxilla and scanned with two CBCT units (Axeos-Dentsply Sirona, Germany and X1-Copenhagen Imaging, Copenhagen) under three conditions: control, one adjacent implant, and two adjacent implants composed of titanium or zirconia. Three blinded observers independently assessed the CBCT volumes for IRR using a 5-point scale. After 30 days, 15% of volumes were re-evaluated. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Two-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc tests analyzed the effects of implant number and composition (α = 0.05). Weighted Kappa assessed intra- and inter-observer agreement.
resultsIntra- and inter-observer agreements ranged from 0.84 to 0.93 and 0.83-0.84, respectively. For Axeos, two zirconia implants significantly reduced sensitivity and AUC compared with control (p < 0.05) and titanium implants (p < 0.05). For X1, two zirconia implants reduced sensitivity and AUC (p < 0.05), while two titanium implants reduced specificity compared with control, one titanium, and two zirconia conditions (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe presence of dental implants, particularly two zirconia implants, reduces the detection of IRR in CBCT.
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.