ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Assessment of periodontal dehiscence and fenestration using ultrasonography and cone-beam computed tomography: an in vitro study.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- In vitro comparison of high-resolution USG, CBCT, and direct measurements of periodontal defects.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study sought to assess the diagnostic value of ultrasonography (USG) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for the visibility of periodontal defects. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe created 37 periodontal defects (dehiscence and fenestration) in fresh sheep mandibles. Two dentomaxillofacial radiologists assessed the CBCT and ultrasonographic images for the presence of defects. Kappa statistics was used for evaluating the inter- and intra-observer agreement. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for each radiographic technique were calculated.
resultsInterobserver evaluations revealed moderate and good agreement for USG and very good agreement for CBCT in visibility of dehiscences and fenestrations. It has been determined that USG and CBCT have similar sensitivity and specificity values.
conclusionsUSG can be used as an alternative diagnostic method to CBCT in the evaluation of periodontal defects. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study has shown that USG can be an alternative diagnostic method to CBCT in imaging dehiscence and fenestration in the alveolar bone, which is the hard tissue component of the jaws. In addition to clinical probing, USG, which is a radiation-free imaging method, can be used to provide additional information in the visibility of defects. Such studies will increase the experience and knowledge of physicians and will allow USG to take a greater place in dental practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39604758What 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.