ArticleMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2025
Periapical radiographs vs cone beam CT imaging for the evaluation of peri-implant bone defects: an ex vivo study.
Article in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 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.
- Nano-Modified Titanium Implant Surfaces for the Prevention and Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Review.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
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
backgroundData on the radiographic interpretation of peri-implantitis is still controversial. Thus, our study aimed to: a) investigate the detectability rate of ex-vivo induced peri-implant bone defects (PBDs) between observers using two different imaging methods; Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Periapical Radiographs (PAs), b) investigate the observers' agreement on their ability to detect PBDs according to their level of expertise and, c) determine the sensitivity and specificity of the imaging methods used to detect induced PBDs. MATERIAL AND
methodsTwo dried human mandibles were used in which ten dental implants were placed and eight PBDs were created simulating clinical conditions. Radiographic examination using PAs and two CBCT modes [CBCT/N (normal/0.3mm3), and CBCT/HR (HiRes/0.15mm3)] was performed at all experimental stages. All PBDs were recorded for their dimensions using a dental periodontal probe as they were used as a gold standard (GS). Finally, 145 images (49 PAs, 48 CBCT/N, and 48 CBCT/HR) were created and evaluated by nine independent observers. Three oral radiologists (OR), three implantologists (IS), and three general practitioners (GP).
resultsPBDs were detected at a higher rate by ORs compared to ISs, and GPs. However, the rate of their agreement, did not reach the nominal level of significance (z-test p-value> 0.05), and also between observers of the same expertise, and between the different imaging methods used: CBCT and PAs (z-test p-value> 0.05). In total, the sensitivity of the CBCTs and PAs method was 95% and 80.5%, respectively. While the specificity for all methods was lower, 57%, 62.2% and 50.4% for CBCT/N, CBCT/H and PAs methods, respectively.
conclusionsAlthough CBCT performs better than PAs in ex-vivo induced PBDs, further research is needed to evaluate if the present results can be extrapolated to other clinical scenarios and defect configurations.
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.