ArticleHead & face medicine2024
Preoperative assessment of bone density for dental implantation: a comparative study of three different ROI methods.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implant stability following septal expansion in immediate mandibular molars: a pilot randomized clinical trial comparing piezoelectric surgery and osseodensification.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Efficacy of topical application of simvastatin gel combined with a collagen sponge carrier in preserving alveolar ridge dimensions: a triple-blind randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Evaluation of early trabecular changes around implants using fractal analysis and panoramic indices.PloS one · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of bone density after implant placement with and without bone grafting using CBCT.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Radiographic Assessment of Normal Periapical Bone Density: A Descriptive Analysis Based on Digital Imaging.International journal of dentistry · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDental cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is commonly used to evaluate cancellous bone density before dental implant surgery. However, to our knowledge, no measurement approach has been standardized yet. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between three different regions of interest (ROI) methods on cancellous bone density at the dental implant site using dental CBCT images.
methodsPatients' dental CBCT images (n = 300) obtained before dental implant surgery were processed using Mimics (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). At the potential implant sites, the rectangle, cylinder, and surrounding cylinder ROI methods were used to measure bone density. Repeated measures one-way analysis of variance was performed to compare the three ROI methods in terms of measurement results. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to identify the likely pair-wise correlations between the three ROI methods.
resultsThe density value obtained using the surrounding cylinder approach (grayscale value [GV],523.56 ± 228.03) was significantly higher than the values obtained using the rectangle (GV, 497.04 ± 236.69) and cylinder (GV,493 ± 231.19) ROI methods in terms of results. Furthermore, significant correlations were noted between the ROI methods (r > 0.965; p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe density measured using the surrounding cylinder method was the highest. The choice of method may not influence the trends of measurement results.
trial registrationThis study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of China Medical University Hospital, No. CMUH111-REC3-205. Informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board of China Medical University Hospital, CMUH111-REC3-205, owing to the retrospective nature of the study.
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.