ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2022
Validation of different protocols of inferior alveolar canal tracing using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of panoramic views reformatted from CBCT scans using manual or automated workflows: an evaluation of geometric accuracy and subjective image quality.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- AI-powered segmentation of bifid mandibular canals using CBCT.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Validation of novel measurement protocols proposed for the standardized assessment of crestal bone levels: A cone-beam computed tomography study.Imaging science in dentistry · 2024Article
- The Influence of Slice Thickness, Sharpness, and Contrast Adjustments on Inferior Alveolar Canal Segmentation on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scans: A Retrospective Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate, compare and validate different protocols of inferior alveolar canal tracing.
methods60 DICOM files with a total of 80 inferior alveolar canals were retrieved and imported to a third-party software where all proposed protocols can be performed. Initially, inferior alveolar canal was traced by two oral and maxillofacial radiologists together on cone beam CT cross-sectional images and considered as the baseline for future comparisons. Oral and maxillofacial surgeon performed the proposed different protocols. The protocols were color-coded differently by the surgeon before being compared with the baseline canal by the radiologists through a 5-point scale.
resultsResults showed that no single protocol was successful in all cases, even the cross-sectional protocol. According to the present study, the hybrid protocol was the most accurate while the automatic protocol was the least accurate.
conclusionsThe hybrid protocol was reliable and showed the highest number of successful applications followed by the commonly used cross-sectional protocol. Dental practitioners should be aware of the application of multiple protocols and their pros and cons as no single protocol was successful in all the cases. Applying the same protocols on a larger sample size using different cone beam CT and multislice CT machines with different exposure parameters is recommended.
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.