ArticleScientific reports2025
Cone beam computed tomography based upper airway measurement after orthognathic surgery: a comparative evaluation of different imaging software.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) enhances understanding of the upper airway (UA). This study compared three software products' abilities in visualizing and quantifying specific upper airway changes using CBCT. We conducted a retrospective analysis of pre- and post-operative CBCT images from 29 patients using Dolphin (Do), Romexis 5 (Ro5), and Romexis 6 (Ro6) software, focusing on alterations in oropharyngeal volume and minimum cross-sectional area as key indicators of orthognathic surgery outcomes. ANOVA analysis showed significant differences in volume measurements between Do/Ro5 (p = 0.034) and Do/Ro6 (p = 0.047), but no difference between Ro5 and Ro6 (p = 0.685). No significant differences were found in minimum cross-sectional area parameters. Despite standardized protocols, interpretation discrepancies exist between Do and Ro 5/6, possibly due to program-specific properties. Further studies on threshold value comparability are needed for data standardization. Direct comparisons of clinical data from Do, Ro5, and Ro6 are limited due to methodological disparities. Nonetheless, these programs allow reproducible and quantifiable measurements for clinical assessments of these specific airway changes following orthognathic surgery.
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.