Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40668345›Full record

SynthesisLa Radiologia medica2025

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the concept of bone quality in dento-maxillofacial Cone Beam Computed Tomography.

Fabio Mistretta, Andrea Magnini, Lorenzo Cinci, Patrizio Zanobini, Maria Pisano, Eleonora Barcali, Leonardo Bocchi, Cosimo Nardi

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in La Radiologia medica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

8 authors.

Fabio MistrettaDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, 50134, Florence, Italy.
Andrea MagniniDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-5132-5053
Lorenzo CinciDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1799-4828
Patrizio ZanobiniDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Florence, 50134, Florence, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8202-2937
Maria PisanoDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-0872-2147
Eleonora BarcaliDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Florence, 50139, Florence, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8924-1377
Leonardo BocchiDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Florence, 50139, Florence, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5109-3399
Cosimo NardiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy. cosimo.nardi@unifi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5489-7824

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesBone quality is currently considered a set of intrinsic characteristics of the bone, among which macro- and microarchitecture of the trabecular bone tissue stands out. The investigation of bone quality is crucial in maxillofacial area and especially in dental implant planning. Nevertheless, there is currently no consensus about what bone quality really represents. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of CBCT in assessing bone quality of mandibular and maxillary bones.

methodsThis systematic review included fourteen articles selected via PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases, with the following features: samples of maxillary or mandibular bones from living individuals or corpses; CBCT as diagnostic investigation tool; a reference standard in assessing bone quality. Ten studies using µCT as reference standard were included in the meta-analysis.

resultsCBCT voxel size was from 80 to 400 µm. Only half of the studies evaluated a considerable number of morphometric parameters as described by the Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Meta-analysis was only possible for the 3D Accuitomo 170 CBCT scanner with a voxel size of 80 µm. Trabecular separation (Tb.Sp) and Degree of Anisotropy (DA) microstructural parameters showed moderate to low heterogeneity among studies without significative differences between CBCT and μCT.

conclusionsHigh-resolution CBCT with a voxel size down to 80 μm should be considered a suitable tool for the assessment of bone microarchitecture. Tb.Sp and DA showed similar values between CBCT and μCT and they could thus be considered as reliable tools for the assessment of bone quality with CBCT. Nevertheless, the high heterogeneity in several bone microstructural parameters and the lack of standardization both in imaging protocols and in image analysis software made CBCT not adequate to be currently deemed the gold standard technique for the assessment of jawbones quality.

Indexed as

Bone DensityCone-Beam Computed TomographyMandibleMaxillaHumansBone densityBone qualityCone Beam Computed TomographyImplantsJawsμCT

Identifiers

PMID40668345

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.