ArticleIranian endodontic journal2021
How Does Voxel Size of Cone-beam Computed Tomography Effect Accurate Detection of Root Strip Perforations.
Article in Iranian endodontic journal, 2021. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of guided endodontics when accessing root canals containing fiberglass posts: an in vitro study.Odontology · 2025Article
- Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of strip and furcal perforations in different sizes by cone beam computed tomography.Oral radiology · 2023Article
- Comparison of the Accuracy of CBCT Images and Apex Locator in Detection of External Root Resorption with Perforation.Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran) · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Our study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of different voxel sizes for cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) when detecting strip perforations of variable sizes. We used 0.2 and 0.3 mm Methods and Materials: This was an Results: Based on the findings of our study, the inter-observer agreement ranged from 58-100%, while the intra-observer agreement was reported to be around 100%. The difference in accuracy between 0.2 and 0.3 mm Conclusion: This
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.