ArticleActa odontologica Scandinavica2024
Impact of acquisition volume on cone beam computed tomography imaging of marginal bone: an ex vivo study.
Article in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe current study explores whether there is a clinically relevant distinction in the measurement of marginal bone loss when comparing high-dose (HD) versus low-dose (LD) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) protocols in small and large acquisition volumes. Material and Methods: CBCTs of four human cadaveric preparates were taken in HD and LD mode in two different fields of view 8 × 8 cm2 (LV) and 5 × 5 cm2 (SV). In total, 43 sites of 15 teeth were randomly chosen, and marginal bone loss was measured twice in all protocols at 43 sites of 15 teeth by one calibrated investigator. Bland-Altman plots and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were calculated to assess the extent of agreement of the measurements. Additionally, the rater scored the certainty in each of the measurements.
resultsFor HD-CBCT CCC of measurements obtained using SV versus LV was 0.991. CCC of measurements obtained using SV versus LV of LD-CBCT was 0.963. Both CCC values indicated excellent agreement between the two volumes in both protocols. CCC also indicated high intramodality correlation between HD-CBCT and LD-CBCT independent of the acquisition volume (0.963 - 0.992). Bland-Altman plots also indicated no substantial differences. Results of certainty scoring showed significant differences (p = 0.004 (LV), p < 0.001(SV)) between the LD and HD-CBCT.
conclusionsAccuracy of measurements of bone loss shows no clinical noticeable effects depending on the CBCT volume in this ex vivo study. There appears to be no relevant advantage of SV over LV, neither in HD-CBCT nor in LD-CBCT and additionally no relevant advantage of HD versus LD in visualizing marginal bone loss.
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.