Purpose: This study examined the influence of metal artifact reduction (MAR), the application of sharpening filters,and their combination on the diagnosis of horizontal root fracture (HRF) in teeth adjacent to a zirconia implant on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) examinations. Materials and Methods: Nineteen single-rooted teeth (9 with HRF and 10 without) were individually positioned in the right central incisor socket of a dry human maxilla. A zirconia implant was placed adjacent to each tooth.Imaging was performed using an OP300 Maxio CBCT (Instrumentarium, Tuusula, Finland) unit with the following settings: a current of 8 mA, both MAR modes (enabled and disabled), a 5 × 5 cm field of view, a voxel size of 0.085 mm, and a peak kilovoltage of 90 kVp. Four oral and maxillofacial radiologists independently evaluated the CBCT scans under both MAR conditions and across 3 levels of sharpening filter application (none, Sharpen 1 × , and Sharpen 2 × ). Diagnostic metrics were calculated and compared using 2-way analysis of variance (α = 5%). The weighted kappa test was used to assess intra- and inter-examiner reliability in the diagnosis of HRF. Results: MAR tool activation, sharpening filter use, and their combination did not significantly impact the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, or specificity of HRF diagnosis (P>0.05). Intra- and inter-examiner agreement ranged from fair to substantial. Conclusion The diagnosis of HRF in a tooth adjacent to a zirconia implant is not affected by the activation of MAR,the application of a sharpening filter, or the combination of these tools.

Purpose: This study examined the influence of metal artifact reduction (MAR), the application of sharpening filters,and their combination on the diagnosis of horizontal root fracture (HRF) in teeth adjacent to a zirconia implant on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) examinations. Materials and Methods: Nineteen single-rooted teeth (9 with HRF and 10 without) were individually positioned in the right central incisor socket of a dry human maxilla. A zirconia implant was placed adjacent to each tooth.Imaging was performed using an OP300 Maxio CBCT (Instrumentarium, Tuusula, Finland) unit with the following settings: a current of 8 mA, both MAR modes (enabled and disabled), a 5 × 5 cm field of view, a voxel size of 0.085 mm, and a peak kilovoltage of 90 kVp. Four oral and maxillofacial radiologists independently evaluated the CBCT scans under both MAR conditions and across 3 levels of sharpening filter application (none, Sharpen 1 × , and Sharpen 2 × ). Diagnostic metrics were calculated and compared using 2-way analysis of variance (α = 5%). The weighted kappa test was used to assess intra- and inter-examiner reliability in the diagnosis of HRF. Results: MAR tool activation, sharpening filter use, and their combination did not significantly impact the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, or specificity of HRF diagnosis (P>0.05). Intra- and inter-examiner agreement ranged from fair to substantial. Conclusion The diagnosis of HRF in a tooth adjacent to a zirconia implant is not affected by the activation of MAR,the application of a sharpening filter, or the combination of these tools.

Purpose: This study examined the influence of metal artifact reduction (MAR), the application of sharpening filters,and their combination on the diagnosis of horizontal root fracture (HRF) in teeth adjacent to a zirconia implant on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) examinations. Materials and Methods: Nineteen single-rooted teeth (9 with HRF and 10 without) were individually positioned in the right central incisor socket of a dry human maxilla. A zirconia implant was placed adjacent to each tooth.Imaging was performed using an OP300 Maxio CBCT (Instrumentarium, Tuusula, Finland) unit with the following settings: a current of 8 mA, both MAR modes (enabled and disabled), a 5 × 5 cm field of view, a voxel size of 0.085 mm, and a peak kilovoltage of 90 kVp. Four oral and maxillofacial radiologists independently evaluated the CBCT scans under both MAR conditions and across 3 levels of sharpening filter application (none, Sharpen 1 × , and Sharpen 2 × ). Diagnostic metrics were calculated and compared using 2-way analysis of variance (α = 5%). The weighted kappa test was used to assess intra- and inter-examiner reliability in the diagnosis of HRF. Results: MAR tool activation, sharpening filter use, and their combination did not significantly impact the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, or specificity of HRF diagnosis (P>0.05). Intra- and inter-examiner agreement ranged from fair to substantial. Conclusion The diagnosis of HRF in a tooth adjacent to a zirconia implant is not affected by the activation of MAR,the application of a sharpening filter, or the combination of these tools.

Purpose: This study examined the influence of metal artifact reduction (MAR), the application of sharpening filters,and their combination on the diagnosis of horizontal root fracture (HRF) in teeth adjacent to a zirconia implant on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) examinations. Materials and Methods: Nineteen single-rooted teeth (9 with HRF and 10 without) were individually positioned in the right central incisor socket of a dry human maxilla. A zirconia implant was placed adjacent to each tooth.Imaging was performed using an OP300 Maxio CBCT (Instrumentarium, Tuusula, Finland) unit with the following settings: a current of 8 mA, both MAR modes (enabled and disabled), a 5 × 5 cm field of view, a voxel size of 0.085 mm, and a peak kilovoltage of 90 kVp. Four oral and maxillofacial radiologists independently evaluated the CBCT scans under both MAR conditions and across 3 levels of sharpening filter application (none, Sharpen 1 × , and Sharpen 2 × ). Diagnostic metrics were calculated and compared using 2-way analysis of variance (α = 5%). The weighted kappa test was used to assess intra- and inter-examiner reliability in the diagnosis of HRF. Results: MAR tool activation, sharpening filter use, and their combination did not significantly impact the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, or specificity of HRF diagnosis (P>0.05). Intra- and inter-examiner agreement ranged from fair to substantial. Conclusion The diagnosis of HRF in a tooth adjacent to a zirconia implant is not affected by the activation of MAR,the application of a sharpening filter, or the combination of these tools.