ArticleCureus2024
Assessing the Accuracy of Linear Alveolar Bone Measurements for Implant Planning Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography by Comparing Three Competent Three-Dimensional Imaging Software: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to assess the accuracy of linear alveolar bone measurements for implant planning using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) by comparing three 3D imaging software: CareStream (Carestream Health, Rochester, New York, United States), RadiAnt (Medixant, Poznan, Poland), and iRYS (Cefla s.c., Imola, Italy).
methodsTwenty-seven dry goat mandibles were used for this in-vitro study. Gutta-percha markers were placed on the mandibles, which were then scanned using a CBCT machine. Linear measurements of the alveolar bone were taken at the implant sites using CareStream, RadiAnt, and iRYS software, and compared to gold-standard measurements obtained using digital Vernier calipers. Measurements included bone height and width, and the absolute measurement errors were calculated to assess accuracy.
resultsiRYS consistently provided the most accurate measurements compared to the control, especially at lower error thresholds. RadiAnt tended to overestimate, while CareStream yielded intermediate values. Across all thresholds, iRYS showed the least deviation, followed by CareStream and RadiAnt. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences between the three software programs at higher error thresholds, confirming the reliability of each for implant planning.
conclusionAll three software programs (iRYS, CareStream, and RadiAnt) offered reliable and accurate measurements for implant planning using CBCT, with iRYS being the most accurate. Clinicians can confidently use any of the three, although iRYS may be preferred for cases requiring higher precision.
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.