ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparative Analysis of Examination Methods for Periapical Lesion Diagnostics: Assessing Cone-Beam Computer Tomography, Ultrasound, and Periapical Radiography.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative assessment of CBCT and digital radiography in quantifying periapical pathology (in vitro study).BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Open Bite With Short Root Anomaly: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- The Clinical Impact of the Combination of CBCT and Periapical Radiographs on Endodontic Diagnosis and Treatment Planning-A Retrospective Cohort Study.International endodontic journal · 2026Article
- Radiomics as a Decision Support Tool for Detecting Occult Periapical Lesions on Intraoral Radiographs.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A Retrospective Study of CBCT-Based Detection of Endodontic Failures and Periapical Lesions in a Romanian Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Toward Precision Diagnosis of Maxillofacial Pathologies by Artificial Intelligence Algorithms: A Systematic Review.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2025Review
- The role of imaging in endodontics.British dental journal · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeriapical lesions of teeth are typically evaluated using periapical X-rays (PA) or cone-beam computer tomography (CBCT); however, ultrasound imaging (US) can also be used to detect bone defects. A comparative analysis is necessary to establish the diagnostic accuracy of US for the detection of periapical lesions in comparison with PA and CBCT.
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the measurement precision of US against PA and CBCT in detecting periapical lesions.
methodsThis study included 43 maxillary and mandibular teeth with periapical lesions. All teeth were examined clinically, radiographically, and ultrasonographically. Observers evaluated and measured the periapical lesions on CBCT, PA, and US images.
resultsThe comparison of lesion size showed that it differs significantly between the different methods of examination. A statistically significant difference was found between CBCT and US (mean difference = 0.99 mm, 95% CI [0.43-1.55]), as well as between CBCT and PA (mean difference = 0.61 mm, 95% CI [0.17-1.05]). No difference was found between the US and PA methods (
conclusionUS cannot replace PA radiography in detecting pathologies but it can accurately measure and characterize periapical lesions with minimal radiation exposure. CBCT is the most precise and radiation-intensive method so it should only be used for complex cases.
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.