ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Dosimetric and Radiobiological Evaluation of Dental Structures and Normal Tissue Complication Probability.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHead and neck cancers require highly conformal radiotherapy techniques to achieve optimal tumor control while minimizing damage to the surrounding critical structures. The present study aimed to compare advanced radiotherapy planning techniques with an emphasis on dental structures and radiobiological outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective observational dosimetric study was conducted on radiotherapy planning records of 25 patients treated over a 10-year period with head and neck malignancies. For each patient, two radiotherapy plans were generated on the same computed tomography dataset using identical optimization parameters. Target volumes and organs at risk (OAR), including the dental structures, parotid glands, mandible, and spinal cord, were contoured. Dose-volume histogram parameters, such as the mean dose, maximum dose, and volume-based indices, were analyzed. Radiobiological evaluation was performed using normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) modeling for xerostomia and mandibular osteoradionecrosis. Statistical analysis was performed using paired tests with a significance level of less than 0.05.
resultsBoth techniques achieved comparable target volume coverage; however, significant improvements in plan quality were observed with the arc-based delivery. The conformity index was higher (0.87 ± 0.04 versus 0.82 ± 0.05; p < 0.001), and the homogeneity index was improved (0.078 ± 0.015 vs. 0.091 ± 0.018; p < 0.001). Mean dose to the parotid glands was significantly reduced (24.6 ± 3.8 gray versus 29.8 ± 4.2 gray; p < 0.001). Dental structures demonstrated lower mean dose (30.4 ± 8.1 gray versus 36.1 ± 8.9 gray; p = 0.002) and reduced volume receiving 30 gray (40.8 ± 13.1% versus 50.4 ± 14.2%; p = 0.001). The mandibular dose parameters were also significantly reduced (p = 0.001). Radiobiological analysis showed a significant reduction in predicted xerostomia (27.3 ± 9.8% versus 38.4 ± 11.6%; p < 0.001) and mandibular osteoradionecrosis (5.2 ± 3.9% vs. 8.7 ± 5.4%; p < 0.001).
conclusionAdvanced radiotherapy planning techniques provide superior dose conformity, improved sparing of dental structures and OAR, and a significant reduction in predicted complication probabilities. These findings support their clinical use for optimizing treatment outcomes and improving the long-term quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer.
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.