Diagnostic accuracy of three CBCT protocols and Metal Artifact Reduction tool for detecting the second canal of mandibular incisors adjacent to a zirconia implant

Clicks: 1
ID: 337926
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #54 of 55 articles by views in dentomaxillofacial radiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of three cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) acquisition protocols, one low-resolution (LR) and two high-resolution (HR) protocols, using a metal artifact reduction tool (MAR) for detecting a second canal in mandibular incisors adjacent to a zirconia implant. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty single-rooted mandibular incisors were included, twelve with one canal and eight with two canals confirmed by micro-CT. The roots and a zirconia implant were placed into the alveolar sockets of the right and left mandibular central incisors of a dry human mandible, respectively. In total, 240 CBCT scans were obtained using FOV 5x5 cm, 90 kVp, with and without implant, for each root. The variable parameters included the MAR tool, one LR-protocol (0.2 mm voxel, 5 mA), and two HR-protocols (0.085 mm voxel, 4 and 10 mA). Five calibrated examiners independently evaluated the scans. An ordinal cumulative link mixed model (CLMM) with crossed random intercepts for roots and examiners was used for data analysis (α = 5%). RESULTS: The CLMM revealed a significant main effect for implant presence (p = 0.049) and canal status (p < 0.001), but not for protocol (p = 0.135) or MAR (p = 0.392). Significant protocol x canal status (p < 0.001) and implant x canal status (p < 0.001) interactions were found, whereas MAR interactions were not significant (p > 0.05). In two-canal roots, the zirconia implant significantly induced false-negative shifts under HR-4 (p < 0.0001) and LR (p < 0.0001) protocols, whereas HR-10 preserved sensitivity (p = 0.7760). In single-canal roots, implants induced false-positive shifts in HR-10 (p = 0.0011) and HR-4 (p = 0.0011). CONCLUSION: Zirconia implants impair second canal detection via false-negative and false-positive errors. High-resolution CBCT (HR-10) should be prioritized to preserve diagnostic sensitivity, whereas MAR offers no clinical benefit and cannot compensate for reduced resolution or exposure. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: CBCT diagnostic performance near zirconia implants relies on acquisition protocol rather than MAR activation. High-resolution CBCT (HR-10) mitigates implant-induced false negatives, whereas lower-resolution or lower-milliamperage protocols compromise diagnostic accuracy.
Reference Key
openalex_W7224844841 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Maria Fernanda Silva Andrade‐Bortoletto, Thaísa Pinheiro Silva, Marcela Tarosso Réa, Renata Maíra de Souza Leal, Débora Costa Ruiz, Deborah Queiroz Freitas
Journal dentomaxillofacial radiology
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/dmfr/twag070
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/dmfr/twag070
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.