ArticleDentistry journal2024
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for the Evaluation of Dental Pulp Chamber Volume: Implications for Clinics and Teaching.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence and morphometric assessment of the middle mesial canal in mandibular first molars in a turkish population: A CBCT study.Odontology · 2026Article
- CBCT in Dental Research: Is Complexity Necessary? An Exploratory Proof-of-Concept Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Quantitative comparison of enamel-dentin and dentin-pulp distances between cone-beam computed tomography and histological sections: An ex vivo study.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- Systemic Statin Use and Pulp Chamber Calcification: A Pilot Retrospective Case-Control Study Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2025Article
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
The dental pulp chamber volume is a fundamental measurement in the field of endodontics, but also in forensic sciences, teaching and training, or tissue engineering. This study evaluates the precision of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in comparison with computed micro-tomography (micro-CT) in evaluating the pulp chamber volume of the upper central incisors ex vivo. The intra-operator and inter-operator errors were evaluated, and the results for the two techniques were compared with those of a T-test for paired samples. The intra-operator and inter-operator errors were >0.05, indicating adequate reproducibility in each operator and no significant differences between their measurements. On the other hand, no significant differences between the two measurement techniques were found. The present results demonstrate that CBCT is a precise, feasible, and reproducible technique for the evaluation of the dental pulp chamber volume ex vivo. The results provided with this method are useful for different medical domains but also for the teaching and training of undergraduate and postgraduate students. Furthermore, the findings of this study carry significant clinical implications, as the accurate assessment of the pulp chamber volume is critical in the diagnosis and treatment of various endodontic conditions. The ability of CBCT to provide reliable 3D dental anatomy measurements can enhance the planning of endodontic treatments by allowing for a better understanding of the internal tooth morphology. Additionally, the precision and reproducibility of CBCT in assessing the pulp chamber volume can contribute to improved clinical outcomes and reduced complications during endodontic procedures. These findings further support the increasingly vital role of CBCT in modern clinical practice and underscore its value as an indispensable tool in the field of dentistry.
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.