ArticleScientific reports2025
Photon-counting CT outperforms dental CBCT in detecting small accessory canals in root-filled teeth in a phantom study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Photon-Counting Detector CT-Based Virtual Monoenergetic Imaging With Metal Artifact Reduction for Endodontic Diagnostics.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Photon-counting detector vs. cone-beam CT in endodontics: a study of simulated endodontic conditions, treatments, and associated complications.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate visualization of dental structures in root-filled teeth is critical for endodontic assessment but challenging due to artifacts from root canal (RC) fillings. This study compares photon-counting-detector CT (PCD-CT) and cone-beam CT (CBCT) for detecting small accessory canals in the presence of RC fillings. A phantom model with four bovine teeth containing RC fillings and five artificial accessory canals (1000-200 μm) per tooth was embedded in a bovine rib. The phantom was scanned with clinical PCD-CT (ultra-high-resolution protocol) and dental CBCT (endodontic protocol). Canal visibility was evaluated using signal-to-noise criteria, and canal diameters were compared with micro-CT measurements, serving as the reference. Blooming artifacts from RC fillings were quantified using the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of attenuation profiles. PCD-CT detected all canals down to 400 μm and 81.5% at 200 μm, while CBCT reliably detected canals ≥ 800 μm, with detection dropping to 47.2% at 400 μm and none at 200 μm. Measurement errors for canal diameters were lower with PCD-CT. Artifact widths varied between modalities, with no clear superiority. PCD-CT provided higher detectability and measurement fidelity for small accessory canals in root-filled teeth compared to a dental CBCT, with similar filling-related blooming, supporting the potential of PCD-CT in post-treatment endodontic imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.