ArticleOral radiology2024
Influence of CBCT-derived panoramic curve variability in the measurements for dental implant planning.
Article in Oral radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate whether the curve markings performed prior to panoramic and cross-sectional reconstructions can influence the planning of oral implants.
methodsTwenty oral radiologists landmarked the reference panoramic curves in 25 CBCT scans of the mandible. Bone height was measured on the resulting cross-sectional slices in the edentulous region of the lower first molar. The following data were recorded: (1) number of landmarks used to build each reference curve; (2) shape of the reference curve (inverted "U", inverted "V" or "horseshoe"); and (3) measurement in the first molar region. The data were assessed for variability based on the number of landmarks, the shape of the reference curve, and the measurements obtained.
resultsThe number of landmarks used to guide the panoramic reconstruction varied among radiologists (p < 0.05), but most of them draw curves in inverted "U" shape (68-100%). The reproducibility of the measurements taken in the edentulous mandibular first molar region was excellent (84.7%). The number of landmarks and the shape of the curve did not have a significant influence on the reproducibility of the measurements (p > 0.05).
conclusionVariations of the operator-dependent steps during the panoramic reconstructions occur but do not play a significant part changing the measurements taken for oral implant planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37540349What 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.