Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of cover screw, resin embedment, and implant angulation on artifact of microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) scanning for implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of twelve implants were randomly divided into 4 groups: (i) implant only; (ii) implant with cover screw; (iii) implant with resin embedment; and (iv) implants with cover screw and resin embedment. Implants angulation at 0°, 45°, and 90° were scanned by micro-CT. Images were assessed, and the ratio of artifact volume to total volume (AV/TV) was calculated. A multiple regression analysis in stepwise model was used to determine the significance of different factors. One-way ANOVA was performed to identify which combination of factors could minimize the artifact. RESULTS: In the regression analysis, implant angulation was identified as the best predictor for artifact among the factors (P < 0.001). Resin embedment also had significant effect on artifact volume (P = 0.028), while cover screw had not (P > 0.05). Non-embedded implants with the axis parallel to X-ray source of micro-CT produced minimal artifact. CONCLUSIONS: Implant angulation and resin embedment affected the artifact volume of micro-CT scanning for implant, while cover screw did not.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: