ArticleScientific reports2024
Ultrasound identification of the cementoenamel junction and clinical correlation through ex vivo analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- CBCT-based virtual surgical planning for predicting risk factors and preventive strategies of buccal plate perforation in maxillary premolar implant placement.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Machine learning for automated identification of anatomical landmarks in ultrasound periodontal imaging.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurately identifying periodontal landmarks via acoustic imaging is increasingly important. Here, we evaluated the accuracy of cementoenamel junction (CEJ) identification using ultrasound by comparing it to clinical methods in 153 extracted human teeth. The distance between the CEJ to a reference point was measured using two clinical methods (visual examination and tactile sensation) as well as ultrasound imaging. Statistical analyses were performed across all teeth and sub-groups, including tooth types (incisors, cuspids, and molars/premolars), and two classifications: A- vs. B- (visually detectable or undetectable CEJ, respectively); and CL-S vs. CL-D (shallow or deep cervical lesions). In A- or CL-S teeth, ultrasound measurements highly agreed with clinical measurements, showing a 1.72-mm 95% CI for A- and 1.99-mm 95% CI for CL-S compared to visual examination, and a 1.77-mm 95% CI for A- and a 2.10-mm 95% CI for CL-S compared to tactile sensation, respectively. For 80% of A- and 76% of CL-S teeth, the difference between ultrasound and visual examination was within ± 20%. For 81% of A- and 80% of CL-S teeth, the difference between ultrasound and tactile sensation was within ± 20%. The variance of ultrasound versus clinical CEJ identifications showed a significant correlation (r = 0.6607) to the cervical lesion depth. The errors between ultrasound and clinical measurements show no significant bias across different tooth types.
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.