We have located links that may give you full text access.
Accuracy of linear measurements for implant planning based on low-dose Cone Beam CT protocols: a systematic review and meta-analysisAccuracy of low-dose CBCT: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology 2024 March 2
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to verify the accuracy of linear measurements performed on low-dose CBCT protocols for implant planning, in comparison with those performed on standard and high-resolution CBCT protocols.
METHODS: The literature search included four databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus). Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts according to eligibility criteria, extracted the data, and examined the methodological quality. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment Tool For In Vitro Studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was used for pooling measurement error data.
RESULTS: The initial search yielded 4,684 titles. In total, 13 studies were included in the systematic review, representing a total of 81 samples, while 9 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias ranged from medium to low. The main results across the studies indicate a strong consistency in linear measurements performed on low-dose images in relation to the reference methods. The overall pooled planning measurement error from low-dose CBCT protocols was -0.24 mm (95% CI, -0.52 to 0.04) with a high level of heterogeneity, showing a tendency for underestimation of real values. Various studies found no significant differences in measurements across different protocols (e.g., voxel sizes, mA settings, or dose levels), regions (incisor, premolar, molar) and types (height vs. width). Some studies, however, noted exceptions in measurements performed on the posterior mandible.
CONCLUSION: Low-dose CBCT protocols offer adequate precision and accuracy of linear measurements for implant planning. Nevertheless, diagnostic image quality needs must be taken into consideration when choosing a low-dose CBCT protocol.
METHODS: The literature search included four databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus). Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts according to eligibility criteria, extracted the data, and examined the methodological quality. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment Tool For In Vitro Studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was used for pooling measurement error data.
RESULTS: The initial search yielded 4,684 titles. In total, 13 studies were included in the systematic review, representing a total of 81 samples, while 9 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias ranged from medium to low. The main results across the studies indicate a strong consistency in linear measurements performed on low-dose images in relation to the reference methods. The overall pooled planning measurement error from low-dose CBCT protocols was -0.24 mm (95% CI, -0.52 to 0.04) with a high level of heterogeneity, showing a tendency for underestimation of real values. Various studies found no significant differences in measurements across different protocols (e.g., voxel sizes, mA settings, or dose levels), regions (incisor, premolar, molar) and types (height vs. width). Some studies, however, noted exceptions in measurements performed on the posterior mandible.
CONCLUSION: Low-dose CBCT protocols offer adequate precision and accuracy of linear measurements for implant planning. Nevertheless, diagnostic image quality needs must be taken into consideration when choosing a low-dose CBCT protocol.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app