ArticleBMC oral health2025
Influence of CBCT device, voxel size, and segmentation software on the accuracy of tooth volume measurements.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predicting T790M mutation status in non-small cell lung cancer based on radiomics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Automated Segmentation of Augmented Bone After Transalveolar Sinus Floor Elevation Using Deep Learning.International dental journal · 2026Article
- CBCT-based quantification of intrabony root volumes in adult natural teeth: An exploratory study.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2026Article
- Assessing the diagnostic performance of MediXpar texture analysis for C-shaped canal morphology on panoramic radiographs: a pilot study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- CBCT Assessment for Dental Implant Surgery at the Maxilla: A Clinical Update.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Association between diabetes and pulp stone prevalence and morphological characteristics: a CBCT-based retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Radiographic Patterns of Impacted Third Molars in a Portuguese Population: A Retrospective Orthopantomography (OPG) and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the impacted upper canine and maxillary sinus dimensions using cone beam computed tomography.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
- Accuracy, precision, and efficiency of manual planimetry versus point counting for sectional area estimation in oral morphometry: a comparison using a simulated two-dimensional reference model.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Comparison of dental surface of canine teeth in dogs after crown preparation using CBCT-based surface reconstruction or conventional dental impression materials.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the influence of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) device type, voxel resolution, and segmentation software on the accuracy of tooth volume measurements. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty extracted single-rooted human incisor teeth were included. Physical volumes were determined using the Archimedes water displacement method (WDM) as the gold standard. Each tooth was scanned using two CBCT devices (Planmeca Promax 3D-Mid and NewTom 5G-XL) at two voxel sizes (0.1-mm and 0.2-mm). Segmentation was performed using two semi-automatic software programs: 3D Slicer and ITK-SNAP. Volumetric deviations from WDM were statistically analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA, with the significance level set at p < 0.05.
resultsAlthough the differences between the two CBCT devices (p = 0.431) and voxel sizes (p = 0.070) were not statistically significant, a trend toward improved volumetric accuracy was noted with the Planmeca Promax 3D-Mid device and the 0.1 mm voxel size. In contrast, a statistically significant difference was found between the segmentation programs (p < 0.001). ITK-SNAP consistently produced higher volume deviations compared to both 3D Slicer and the gold-standard WDM. The most accurate results were achieved using the Planmeca Promax 3D-Mid device, a 0.1 mm voxel size, and the 3D Slicer software, with no statistically significant deviation from WDM (p = 0.467).
conclusionCBCT device selection and voxel size (0.1-mm vs. 0.2-mm) did not significantly affect volumetric accuracy in single-rooted incisor teeth. However, the choice of segmentation software played a critical role, with 3D Slicer providing measurements closest to the gold standard. These findings highlight the importance of software selection in CBCT-based volumetric measurements for dental applications, though the results may be limited to teeth with similar anatomical complexity (e.g., single-rooted incisors).
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.