ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Visibility of alveolar bone thicknesses on CBCT images-a study on minimum bone requirements using various reconstruction techniques, viewing modes, and resolutions.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability and agreement of CBCT-based alveolar bone assessments for follow-up studies on adolescent orthodontic patients using multiplanar reconstruction and various CBCT units.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Trial
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate at which thickness marginal bone becomes visible to the observer on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images and how reconstruction technique and viewing mode affect assessment. MATERIALS AND
methodsFourteen anterior teeth from six human mandibles were examined with two CBCT resolution protocols: standard- and high-resolution. Distance from the cementoenamel junction to the visible marginal bone level (MBL) was measured in three groups of reconstructed CBCT images: multiplanar reformation (MPR) with grey scale, MPR with inverted grey scale, and 3D rendering. These measurements were used to identify the bone level where marginal bone width should be measured on histological photographs of sliced teeth. Gold standards comprised measurements of bone thickness at the superior MBL on histological photographs.
resultsMPR grey scale images exposed at high-resolution settings yielded highest validity: bone widths of 0.173 mm (buccal) and 0.356 mm (lingual) were necessary for visibility on a CBCT image. 3D-rendered lingual surfaces exposed with high-resolution settings had lowest validity. Intra-observer agreement for all CBCT and histological measurements was high.
conclusionThe best CBCT resolution protocol, reconstruction technique, and viewing mode for analyzing buccal and lingual surfaces of the alveolar bone margin are images exposed with a high-resolution protocol, reconstructed using MPR, and viewed in grey scale. Bone thickness required to be visualized was twice lingually compared to buccally. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The visualization of bone thickness in CBCT requires a greater thickness on the lingual side compared to the buccal side. 3D-rendered reconstructions should be avoided when evaluating thin bony structures.
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.