ArticleOdontology2022
Comparison of imaging modalities in the diagnosis of external cervical resorption (ECR): an in-vitro study.
Article in Odontology, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of cervical and apical root resorption in maxillary central incisors without orthodontic treatment: A cone-beam computed tomography study in Peruvian individuals.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Influence of tube current and metal artifact reduction on the diagnosis of external cervical resorption in teeth adjacent to a dental implant in CBCT: an ex-vivo study.Clinical oral investigations · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
External cervical resorption is a pathological condition affecting the cervical margins of teeth. Due to the increased prevalence and the area it affects, it can be easily misdiagnosed. The ability of clinicians to diagnose ECR and subcategorise the lesions using periapical radiographs and cone beam-CT scans has not been investigated in-depth. This study aims to assess if diagnostic ability to detect ECR lesions with the two modalities was different and if there was a change in the diagnosis when CBCT was used. A human skull, including the mandible was used for this study. The teeth were randomly allocated to the different subcategories, then pre and post-preparation radiographs with CBCT were taken. Statistical analysis was done using IBM SPSS version 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The study sample was composed of 60 participants, the overall sensitivity of intraoral radiographs was significantly lower than CBCT. When the participants were told the radiograph and the CBCT were of the same tooth 60% said they would change their diagnosis. The use of intraoral radiographs alone might not be enough to identify and correctly diagnose ECR lesions. CBCT can give a better idea about the nature and the extent of the lesion.
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.