ArticleEuropean oral research2018
Comparative assessment of 3D reconstruction technique and Cavalieri's principle in predicting the mandibular bone defect volumes.
Article in European oral research, 2018. 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.
- Determination of Species-Specific Differences in Intracranial Volume of Tuj Sheep and Hair Goats Using Stereology and Computed Tomography Methods.Veterinary medicine and science · 2024Article
- Poor condyle position after mandibular reconstruction and a classification system for patients with "VSCU" based on computed tomography: a cross-sectional study with retrospective data collection.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of the Cavalieri's principle and 3D reconstruction in predicting the volume of a bony defect. MATERIALS AND
methodsDefects of the same approximate size were created on nine artificial mandibles. The actual volume of the defect on each mandible was measured by water displacement, and served as the control. Each mandible was then scanned using a CBCT and volume measurements were made for each defect using two techniques: Cavalieri's principle and 3D reconstruction. For each defect, the volume obtained by each of the two techniques was compared to the control volume using the analysis of variances (ANOVA) with p<0.05.
resultsANOVA between the control, 3D reconstruction and Cavalieri's principle groups showed no statistically significant differences (p=.058). When the control group was further analyzed by Dunnett's post-hoc test, the results from Cavalieri's principle were found to be statistically different than the control group (p=.035), whereas the results of 3D reconstruction technique did not reach the level of significance (p=.523).
conclusionCavalieri's principle significantly underestimates the actual control volume, and is less accurate than the 3D reconstruction technique. The 3D reconstruction method is a reliable technique in measuring volume of bony defects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.