Trial reportClinical oral investigations2024
Comparing standard- and low-dose CBCT in diagnosis and treatment decisions for impacted mandibular third molars: a non-inferiority randomised clinical study.
Trial report 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 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Radiographic assessment and orthodontic intervention effects on orthodontically induced root resorption: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- Current evidence of generative artificial intelligence specifically developed for dental and maxillofacial radiology: a systematic review.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2026Pooled it
- CBCT-based evaluation of mandibular third molar impaction and its effects on adjacent second molars in a Saudi population: a retrospective study of 420 scans.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Impact of Generative AI-Enhanced Low-Dose Cone-Beam Computed Tomography on Diagnosis and Treatment Planning for Impacted Mandibular Third Molars.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of OPG and CBCT in the Evaluation of Impacted Mandibular third Molar Proximity to the Mandibular Canal.Current medical imaging · 2026Article
- Associations between odontogenic and sinus pathologies - a low-dose CBCT study.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis randomised clinical study aimed to assess the influence of low-dose cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) on the visibility of the mandibular canal (MC) and its proximity to mandibular third molars (M3Ms) as assessed by general dental practitioners (GPs) and oral-maxillofacial surgeons (OMFSs), as well as its impact on their clinical decisions, when compared to standard-dose CBCT.
methods154 impacted M3Ms from 90 patients were randomly assigned to three groups for two CBCT exposures using one standard-dose (333 mGy×cm
resultsThe majority (78.5-99.3%) of MCs were clearly identified on standard-dose CBCT by all observers. Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences between paired scans only in MC visibility but not in the M3M-MC proximity or treatment decisions. The mean differences in MC visibility between paired scans ranged 0-0.22 with the upper bounds of the 95% confidence intervals (0.09-0.36) falling within the non-inferiority region.
conclusionsThe investigated low-dose CBCT protocols could provide acceptable image quality for the evaluation of impacted M3Ms in most cases. When compared to standard-dose CBCT, these low-dose CBCT images did not significantly affect the assessments of the M3M-MC proximity, treatment strategies, and patient management decisions made by GPs and OMFSs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The low-dose protocols might be clinically acceptable for M3M management while greatly reducing radiation exposure.
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.