ArticleImaging science in dentistry2024
Validation of novel measurement protocols proposed for the standardized assessment of crestal bone levels: A cone-beam computed tomography study.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 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
- A comparison of panoramic views reformatted from CBCT scans using manual or automated workflows: an evaluation of geometric accuracy and subjective image quality.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Posterior mandibular edentulous ridge morphometry on CBCT: anatomical constraints relevant to surgical planning.BMC oral health · 2026Observational
- Bone changes following horizontal bone augmentation with resorbable and non-resorbable membranes: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Assessment of bone density around impacted maxillary canine teeth by gray value analysis on cone-beam computed tomography images.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of pathological and volumetric changes in the maxillary sinus using CBCT in patients with periodontitis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Assessment and localization of the posterior superior alveolar artery in lateral window approach for maxillary sinus floor elevation.BMC oral health · 2026Observational
- Prevalence, extent and surrounding bone density of ankylosed impacted maxillary canines.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- In vitro evaluation of periodontal defects with intraoral radiography and cone beam computed tomography.BMC oral health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study was performed to introduce, evaluate, and compare various novel assessment protocols designed for straightforward, reliable, and reproducible measurement of alveolar bone levels. These protocols are intended for standardized periodontal assessment and follow-up, utilizing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images and manipulation of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) viewer software. Materials and Methods: Two experienced oral and maxillofacial radiologists developed 5 distinct radiographic measurement protocols. These techniques were established to assess the alveolar bone level of a periodontally affected upper central incisor using a method that is consistently repeatable across observers. Two additional assessors, blinded to the details of the study, independently applied the protocols to retrieved DICOM files that met the eligibility criteria. A scoring system with 3 subscores was created and used to compare the protocols. Results: Statistically excellent inter-observer reliability was observed for all protocols, other than protocol 1, which demonstrated moderate reliability. The average discrepancy between measurements taken by the 2 observers was 1.2 mm for protocol 1, 0.81 mm for protocol 2, and less than 0.5 mm for the remaining 3 protocols. All approaches except protocol 4 were straightforward to apply. Conclusion: This study introduces multiple reliable protocols for the evaluation of periodontal bone levels that ensure consistency across observers. Based on the findings, the double axial lines and incisocrestal distance protocols are recommended. These new assessment approaches, along with any future modifications, may be useful in periodontal assessment, dental implant follow-up, orthodontic evaluation, research, and artificial intelligence model generation.
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.