ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparison between Conventional Modality Versus Cone-Beam Computer Tomography on the Assessment of Vertical Furcation in Molars.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of Ionizing-Radiation-Based and Non-Ionizing Imaging Assessments for the Diagnosis of Periodontitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025Pooled it
- Does Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Provide Additional Benefit to Periodontal Infrabony Defect Topography Assessment? A Multi-Centre Case-Based Questionnaire.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Deep Learning for Dental Diagnosis: A Novel Approach to Furcation Involvement Detection on Periapical Radiographs.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the accuracy of diagnosis of vertical furcation subclass in molars using periapical radiographs (PAs) and clinical chartings compared against cone-beam computer tomography (CBCT) as the gold standard. The protocol involved examiners with different levels of experience. This retrospective radiographic study retrieved 40 molar teeth with full periodontal chartings, PAs, and CBCT records. Fifteen examiners with different levels of experience evaluated the PAs and periodontal chartings to assess the vertical depth of furcation and, thus, the vertical subclassification. CBCT was used as the gold standard for comparison. The accuracy of vertical furcal depth measured was assessed together with the accuracy of vertical subclassification assignment. The reliability of the conventional diagnostic modality among the examiners was also evaluated. A linear mixed model adjusted for the CBCT vertical furcal depth measurement was constructed to determine if tooth position, horizontal furcation distribution, and examiner experience level affect the bias in the vertical depth of furcation measurement. The reliability of the conventional periodontal diagnostic method in measuring vertical furcal depth was found to be fair, while vertical subclass assignment was moderate. Significantly better reliability during subclass assignment was found with mandibular molars (p < 0.001) and in maxillary molars with isolated buccal class II furcation. Within the study’s limitations, conventional periodontal diagnostics based on periapical radiographs and clinical periodontal chartings appear to be in poor to fair agreement with CBCT (gold standard) when measuring the vertical depth of furcation. Examiners with the least experience were more prone to bias when estimating the vertical furcal depth.
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.