Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40180785›Full record

ArticleAnatomical science international2026

Evaluation of semicircular canal dehiscence using micro-computed tomography and comparison with cone-beam computed tomography.

Buket Oguz, Ferhat Geneci, Mert Ocak, Mehmet Fatih Sentürk, Emine Sebnem Kursun Cakmak, Kaan Orhan, Kadir Desdicioglu

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Buket OguzFaculty of Medicine, Department of Anatomy, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Bilkent, 06010, Ankara, Turkey. buketoguzbeyoglu@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5983-1875
Ferhat GeneciFaculty of Medicine, Department of Anatomy, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Bilkent, 06010, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5039-4664
Mert OcakFaculty of Dentistry, Deparment of Anatomy, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6832-6208
Mehmet Fatih SentürkFaculty of Dentistry, Deparment of Oral, Dental and Maxillofacial Surgery, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1239-441X
Emine Sebnem Kursun CakmakFaculty of Dentistry, Deparment of Radiology, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7113-5450
Kaan OrhanFaculty of Dentistry, Deparment of Radiology, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6768-0176
Kadir DesdiciogluFaculty of Medicine, Department of Anatomy, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Bilkent, 06010, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0346-7602

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cone-Beam Computed TomographySemicircular Canal DehiscenceSemicircular CanalsTemporal BoneX-Ray MicrotomographyHumansCone beam CTHuman temporal bonesMicro CTSemicircular canal dehiscence

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.