ArticleEuropean endodontic journal2025
Evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography Resolution, 3D Printing Resolution and Drilling Depth on Drilling Accuracy in Guided Endodontics: An In-Vitro Study.
Article in European endodontic journal, 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.
- Quantitative comparison of enamel-dentin and dentin-pulp distances between cone-beam computed tomography and histological sections: An ex vivo study.Journal of dental sciences · 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
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) resolution, 3D printing resolution, and drilling depth on drilling accuracy in guided endodontic access.
methodsFifty-six printed canines were designed, fabricated, and mounted in maxillary arch models. Preoperative CBCT and 3D surface scan were matched and used to design a surgical guide with different planning parameters: 1) reference (high-resolution CBCT (80 µm) and 3D printing (50 µm), shallow drilling (14 mm)), 2) low-resolution CBCT (120 µm), 3) low-resolution 3D printing (100 µm) and 4) deep drilling (high-resolution CBCT (80 µm) and 3D printing (50 µm), deep drilling (21 mm)). Guided access into the printed canines was performed in a simulated clinical setting. A postoperative CBCT was matched with the planning data in order to determine the angular and linear (total, mesiodistal, buccolingual and depth) deviation between the planned and performed cavities. Mann-Whitney test was used to analyse differences between the reference group and each test group.
resultsAngular, total linear and buccolingual deviations were significantly higher in the low-resolution CBCT group than in the reference group (median: 3.10° and 2.0° (p<0.01), 1.41 mm and 1.06 mm (p<0.05) and 0.77 mm and 0.41 mm (p<0.05), respectively). Depth deviation was significantly higher in the low-resolution 3D printing group than in the reference group (median: 0.90 mm and 0.45 mm (p<0.01), respectively). No other significant differences between the groups were noted (p>0.05).
conclusionHigher CBCT resolution resulted in lower angular and total linear deviation during guided endodontic access. Higher 3D printing resolution yielded lower vertical linear deviation. (EEJ-2024-05-086).
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.