ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Temporomandibular Joint Disorder Diagnosis: A Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Comparative evaluation of CBCT and MRI in detecting simulated TMJ disc displacement: AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- Global research trends in MRI of temporomandibular disorders: a bibliometric study and visualization analysis via CiteSpace.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the imaging characteristics of temporomandibular joint disorder (TMD) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and to compare their diagnostic performance. Methods: Clinical data from 53 TMD patients and 53 healthy controls were retrospectively reviewed. All participants underwent both CBCT and MRI within a two-week interval. Key measurements included condylar dimensions and joint space assessments. The study evaluated each modality's ability to detect TMD-related abnormalities in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and masticatory muscles, such as joint space narrowing, bone changes, disc displacement, and muscle pathology. Statistical analysis compared diagnostic findings between the imaging techniques. Results: Image quality was comparable between CBCT and MRI (P > 0.05). Both modalities showed no significant differences in superior and anterior joint spaces between TMD and control groups, but the posterior joint space, condylar width, and anteroposterior diameter were significantly different (P < 0.05). Across all participants, significant differences were observed between CBCT and MRI measurements for superior and anterior joint spaces (P < 0.05). Among TMD patients, 69.81% had pain disorders and 30.19% had joint disorders. Both modalities demonstrated high inter- and intra-observer consistency (P < 0.05). CBCT showed high agreement for most bony abnormalities but only moderate for disc and muscle pathology. MRI had high agreement for most findings but was moderate in detecting bone hyperplasia and sclerosis. MRI detected significantly more soft tissue abnormalities, including disc displacement and joint effusion (P < 0.05), while CBCT was more effective in identifying bone hyperplasia, sclerosis, and condylar deformation (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Both CBCT and MRI are highly valuable tools for differentiating and assessing TMD. CBCT excels in evaluating bone-related changes, whereas MRI is superior for assessing the articular disc and soft tissue abnormalities.
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.