ArticleScientific reports2022
Reliability and accuracy of dental MRI for measuring root canal length of incisors and canines: a clinical pilot study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring Technological Progress in Three-Dimensional Imaging for Root Canal Treatments: A Systematic Review.International dental journal · 2025Pooled it
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Dental Pulp Assessment: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Review
- High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of teeth and periodontal tissues using a microscopy coil.Imaging science in dentistry · 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate whether high-resolution, non-contrast-enhanced dental MRI (dMRI) can reliably and accurately measure the canal length of incisors and canines compared with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Three-Tesla dMRI was performed in 31 participants (mean age: 50.1 ± 14.2 years) with CBCT data. In total, 67 teeth were included (28 from the upper jaw and 39 from the lower jaw; 25 central incisors, 22 lateral incisors, and 20 canines). CBCT and dMRI datasets were reconstructed to visualize the root canal pathway in a single slice in the vestibulo-oral (V-O) and mesio-distal (M-D) direction. Root canal length was measured twice by two radiologists using dMRI and CBCT. Data were statistically analyzed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and performing Bland-Altman analysis. The reliability of dMRI measurements was excellent and comparable to that of CBCT measurements (intra-rater I/intra-rater II/inter-rater was 0.990/0.965/0.951 for dMRI vs. 0.990/0.994/0.992 for CBCT in the M-D direction and 0.991/0.956/0.967 for dMRI vs. 0.998/0.994/0.996 for CBCT in the V-O direction). According to Bland-Altman analysis, the mean (95% confidence interval) underestimation of root canal lengths was 0.67 mm (- 1.22 to 2.57) for dMRI and 0.87 mm (- 0.29 to 2.04) for CBCT in the M-D direction/V-O direction. In 92.5% of cases, dMRI measurements of canal length had an accuracy within 0-2 mm. Visualization and measurement of canal length in vivo using dMRI is feasible. The reliability of dMRI measurements was high and comparable to that of CBCT measurements. However, the spatial and temporal resolution of dMRI is lower than that of CBCT, which means dMRI measurements are less accurate than CBCT measurements. This means dMRI is currently unsuitable for measuring canal length in clinical practice.
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.