ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2025
Accuracy of upper airway volume measurements using different software products: a comparative analysis.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2025. 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.
- Volumetric Pulp Analysis of Mandibular Molars on CBCT as a Supplementary Indicator for Age-Related Dental Changes: A Preliminary Investigation in a Turkish Population Sample.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of airway volume measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images using various software programmes, with a focus on assessing the performance of NemoStudio compared to other tools. The estimated volumes were compared with the volume of the solid model's cavity filled with water (gold standard).
methodsA single 3D-printed airway model was created based on CBCT data and scanned 10 times under identical conditions. Volume measurements were performed using semi-automatic segmentation in 4 software programmes (NemoStudio, NNT Viewer, ITK-SNAP, and 3D Slicer). The results were compared to the gold standard using repeated measures analysis of variance, Bland-Altman plots, and post hoc comparisons.
resultsNemo Studio demonstrated a systematic bias and higher variability compared to the gold standard, resulting in lower accuracy than the other software programmes. ITK-SNAP and 3D Slicer showed the highest agreement with the gold standard, while NNT Viewer also exhibited acceptable performance. Statistical analyses revealed significant differences in the accuracy of volume measurements among the software tools (P < .001). Bland-Altman plots highlighted Nemo Studio's broader limits of agreement, emphasizing its deviation from the gold standard.
conclusionVariability in airway volume measurement accuracy underscores the need for careful software selection and methodological standardization. Further refinement of segmentation algorithms is essential for improved consistency and reliability in clinical applications. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study provides the first evaluation of NemoStudio's volumetric accuracy for CBCT-based airway measurements, offering novel insights into software reliability and the impact of algorithm selection in clinical and academic settings.
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.