ArticleAnatomical science international2026
Evaluation of semicircular canal dehiscence using micro-computed tomography and comparison with cone-beam computed tomography.
Article in Anatomical science international, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Semicircular canal dehiscence (SSCD), is a rare bony defect that reveals a third window of semicircular canal except oval and round window. Dizziness, acute vertigo attacks, conductive hearing loss, tinnitus and amplified heartbeat sounds are the symptoms of dehiscence. The aim of this article is to analyze the length and location of semicircular canal dehiscence as superior (anterior), inferior (posterior), or lateral (horizontal) canals using micro-CT and compare it with Cone beam CT. A total of 39 dry temporal bones without visible damage were examined both in Micro CT and Cone beam CT. Measurements were made on these cross-sectional images using the CTAn software. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. When examining Micro-CT images, only 4 canals showed dehiscence among 39 bones. The dehicences were observed in both lateral, superior, and posterior semicircular canals. One dehiscence was in the lateral semicircular canal, two were in the superior semicircular canal, and the last one was in the posterior semicircular canal. In CBCT images, dehiscence was observed in a total of 11 canals among the 39 bones. Two dehiscences were in the lateral semicircular canal, three in the posterior semicircular canal, and six in the superior semicircular canal. There was a significant difference between Micro CT and Cone beam CT in terms of dehiscence detection (p < 0,05). Consequently, this study emphasizes the potential danger of an uncertain diagnosis of canal dehiscence with CT in individuals with minor irregularities in Cone beam CT scans, which could result in potentially inappropriate surgical interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40180785What 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.