ArticleImaging science in dentistry2026
Evaluation of artifacts in cone-beam computed tomography from different intraradicular pins and cementation materials using different exposure protocols.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 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
Purpose: To evaluate the generation of artifacts from intraradicular pins and cementation materials in cone-beam computed tomography images, using different exposure protocols. Materials and Methods: Sixty extracted single-rooted premolars human were divided into six groups such as G1: Fiberglass pin with Allcem cement, G2: Metal core fiberglass pin core with Allcem cement, G3: metal core fiberglass pin with Allcem Core cement, G4: Fiberglass pin with Allcem Core cement, G5: Fiberglass pin with Panavia cement, and G6: metal core fiberglass pin with Panavia cement. CBCT images were acquired on the Orthophos XG Results: For both HD and non-HD acquisition modes, the percentage of severe artifacts was higher in groups G3 and G6 ( Conclusion: The type of fiberglass pin and cement used did not affect the production of the artifacts. When evaluating the scanning modes, the non-HD mode, which had lower mAs and fewer image bases, showed less artifact severity on the assessed CBCT scans.
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.