ArticleHead & face medicine2025
Comparison of cone beam-computed and micro-computed tomography data for measuring facial canal dehiscence.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelecting the correct imaging technique for critical anatomical structures is essential in descriptive studies and for supporting clinical applications. Facial canal dehiscence poses a significant risk for iatrogenic facial nerve injuries during middle ear surgeries. Accurate imaging is critical for surgical planning and minimizing complications. Detection of facial canal openings in the clinic is performed using imaging methods such as high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT). Studies have shown that the sensitivity of this method is approximately 66%. A high-resolution, 3D imaging method was used to measure the sensitivity of HRCT in the most accurate way. AIMS/
objectivesThis study aimed to compare two radiological methods for measuring facial canal dehiscence. Specifically, we compared cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) with high-resolution micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-six temporal bone specimens without external defects were used. The specimens were scanned using both CBCT and micro-CT. The presence of facial canal dehiscence in the tympanic segment of the facial nerve (FN) was evaluated. A paired sample t-test was used for statistical analysis, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsFacial canal dehiscence was detected in 10 bones on micro-CT images, while 26 bones appeared intact. In contrast, CBCT images showed dehiscence in 25 bones, with 11 bones intact. Additionally, the mean dehiscence width was 3.469 mm (range: 1.577-8.921 mm) in micro-CT images, compared to 1.279 mm (range: 0.670-9.354 mm) in CBCT images. In the 10 bones where dehiscence was identified by both methods, the average width of the dehiscence measured 5.347 mm (range: 1.840-9.354 mm) in the CBCT images. The difference in measurements between CBCT and micro-CT was statistically significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: The low resolution of CBCT was insufficient for visualizing the thin bony tissue lining the facial canal. These findings suggest that the frequency of facial canal dehiscence measured in preoperative CBCT images may be overestimated compared to actual anatomical conditions. These findings provide critical insights for preoperative evaluation and surgical planning in middle ear procedures.
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.