ArticleCureus2024
Assessing the Accuracy and Reliability of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in Diagnosing Grade II and III Furcation Involvement Compared to Traditional Clinical Examination Methods.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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, 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
- Review
- Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)-Based Diagnosis of Dental Bone Defects.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Chronic periodontal diseases can lead to bone defects and tooth loss, making accurate diagnosis essential for treatment. Various methods are used for diagnosing furcation involvement, with clinical examination and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) being the most effective. CBCT produces reliable images with submillimeter resolution, revealing marginal bone contours and furcation defects. Limited studies show that CBCT is more precise than clinical detection for diagnosing furcation involvement. Therefore, CBCT technology can be considered as an adjunct method for furcation involvement detection. This study tests the accuracy and efficiency of CBCT and clinical examination in detecting furcation involvement. Material and methods The study included 25 patients (68 molars) with generalized periodontitis of stage II to IV, Grade B and C. Inclusion criteria required at least two intrabony defects with probing depth > 6mm in both jaws and criteria of periodontitis in at least 30% of the teeth present. Results The study compared clinical examination and CBCT readings for measuring maxillary and mandibular teeth furcation involvement. The results show significant differences between clinical and CBCT measurements of maxillary teeth furcation involvement, particularly in specific areas and types of furcation involvement. In contrast, there were significant differences between clinical and CBCT readings for only a few measurements of mandibular teeth furcation involvement. Therefore, the study suggests that CBCT imaging may be beneficial for accurate diagnosis and treatment planning in cases of furcation involvement in maxillary teeth. Conclusion CBCT imaging is a reliable adjunct method for detecting furcation involvement in maxillary teeth, while clinical examination alone may not be sufficient. Therefore, the use of CBCT technology should be considered in cases where accurate detection of furcation involvement is necessary for successful treatment outcomes. However, further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.
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.