ArticlePloS one2024
Treatment decision for impacted mandibular third molars: Effects of cone-beam computed tomography and level of surgeons' experience.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Comparative Evaluation of Hybrid Attention-CNN and Vision Transformer Models for Multi-Class Classification of Third-Second Molar Relationships on CBCT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Deep Learning Model for Second-Molar Lesions Related to Impacted Third Molars.International dental journal · 2026Article
- 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
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
The aim of this study was to analyse the effect of surgeons' experience and the benefit of using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, compared to the use of panoramic radiography (PAN) images, on their decisions with regard to mandibular third molar treatment modality. Panoramic radiographs and CBCTs from a total of 143 patients who had undergone impacted third molar surgery were randomly evaluated for treatment decision by 10 participants with differing clinical experience (5 novices and 5 experienced surgeons). The degree of agreement between the same type of participants was 'Substantial Agreement' (0.61-0.80) or 'Almost Perfect' (0.81-1.00). When the treatment modality decisions of the experienced and novice surgeons, using PAN and CBCT images, were compared, a statistically significant difference was found (p<0.01) between the variables. In 50 cases, experienced surgeons decided from CBCT images that total extraction was the best treatment method but opted for coronectomy when presented with PAN images of the same cases. In 164 cases novice surgeons decided on total extraction from CBCT images but chose coronectomy when presented with PAN images of the same cases. The results obtained from this study revealed that the degree of professional experience of the surgeon was a significant factor in determining the treatment decision. Moreover, the treatment choice of experienced surgeons was less affected by the change in imaging technique employed, when compared to novice surgeons.
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.