ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2025
In vitro comparison of high-resolution USG, CBCT, and direct measurements of periodontal defects.
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.
- A novel fluoride tray-assisted workflow for artificial intelligence-driven automated maxillary gingival segmentation on cone beam CT.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the accuracy of cone-beam CT (CBCT), ultrasonography (USG) and direct measurements in linear dimensions of periodontal defects on the buccal alveolar surfaces of mandibular sheep teeth.
methodsA total of 88 defects were artificially created, including dehiscence, fenestration, grade I and II endodontic-periodontal defects. Two observers performed measurements twice. Maximum length, depth, and width of the defects were measured with all 3 methods. Manual measurements were accepted as the gold standard. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. The mean value of the measurements, the bias, the SD of the differences, and the limits of agreement were estimated. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.
resultsIntra- and inter-observer reliability was excellent, suggesting ICCs 0.988-1 and 0.981-1, respectively. The highest CCs were obtained from depth measurements, while the lowest CCs were obtained from length measurements. Although the differences were scattered around the bias. The estimated bias values for USG and CBCT were 0.18 (0.153-0.21) (P < .001) and 0.091 (0.079-0.102) (P < .001), respectively. Observers recorded measurements which were slightly underestimated with both techniques utilized.
conclusionsObservers measured periodontal defects with clinically acceptable underestimations by using CBCT and USG. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: It is important to compare different innovative imaging modalities and gauge their efficiency in the measurement of various types of periodontal defects in terms of treatment planning, prognosis, and follow up of those cases.
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.