ArticleDentistry journal2019
Comparison of Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Radiographs Using Clinically Relevant Parameters.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adverse outcomes of post-core restorations performed by undergraduate and postgraduate dental students: a retrospective comparison.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Incidentally Detected Odontogenic Keratocyst With Inconclusive Histopathology: A Case Report Emphasizing Clinicoradiologic Correlation.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
- Alveolar bone loss is associated with oral cancer: a case-control study.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Article
- The Accuracy of Bone Assessment Distal to Lower Second Molars Using Panoramic Radiography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2024Review
- Article
- Marginal bone loss in the second molar related to impacted mandibular third molars: comparison between panoramic images and cone beam computed tomography.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2020Article
- Evaluation of clinical and radiographic outcome of friction fit conical abutment system in implant-supported dental prostheses: AnJournal of Indian Prosthodontic SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work compared the assessment of clinically relevant parameters by two-dimensional, that is, full-mouth intraoral radiograph (I-O) and panoramic radiograph (OPT), and three-dimensional, that is, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), imaging methods. Different radiographic images (CBCT, I-O and OPT) were available for a 53-year-old female patient with dental and periodontal problems. A total of 14 dental and periodontal parameters were assessed by two independent examiners and compared among the three radiographic imaging modalities. For 10 parameters (71%), the CBCT images were superior to both I-O and OPT images. In contrast, CBCT demonstrated an inferior performance compared to I-O and OPT in the assessment of caries and dental restorations. Compared to OPT, I-O provided more clinically relevant findings for 10 out of 14 parameters (71%). Agreement between I-O and OPT was found with respect to dehiscence, fenestration, the number of bone walls and the root canal cross-section. Differences between the radiographic images were more likely to be detected when maxillary teeth rather than mandibular teeth were assessed with regard to furcation involvement, root proximity and root fusion.
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.