ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2020
Does anthropomorphic model design in
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Diagnostic Reliability of CBCT for Vertical Root Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analytical Approach.International journal of dentistry · 2025Review
- Evaluation of Palatal Thickness for the Placement of MARPE Device among a Cohort of Iraqi-Kurdish Population: A Retrospective CBCT Study.International journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Determination of a cone-beam CT low-dose protocol for root fracture diagnosis in non-endodontically treated anterior maxillary teeth.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe evidence for diagnostic accuracy using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for dental applications depends heavily on
methodsHorizontal or oblique root fracture was induced in 24 of 48 permanent maxillary incisors. The 48 teeth were scanned by CBCT using standard clinical exposure factors on five occasions, each with a different model design. Scans were viewed by five dental and maxillofacial radiologists, who each made a forced diagnosis of fracture or no fracture in each root and a judgment on root fracture using a five-point confidence scale. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp) and areas under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (Az) were calculated for each observer for each model.
resultsThere were no significant differences between the diagnostic accuracy measurements recorded using different models. There were, however, numerous significant differences between observers using the same anthropomorphic model.
conclusionsDespite the differences in X-ray attenuation between the five model designs, the results suggest that the anthropomorphic model does not affect the results of diagnostic accuracy studies on root fracture using this CBCT machine at standard clinical exposures. This provides some confidence in the previously published evidence. The interobserver diagnosis differences indicate that research using only two observers could provide misleading results.
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.