ArticleOdontology2026
Assessment of unfilled and filled canals in mandibular incisors: comparison between periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography.
Article in Odontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim is to compare periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in assessing the number of root canals in mandibular incisors and in identifying untreated canals, using microcomputed tomography (microCT) as the reference standard. Images of forty-two mandibular incisors were obtained by microCT, periapical radiography, and CBCT. Five endodontist examiners independently analyzed the periapical and CBCT images to identify the presence of one or two canals. Subsequently, 10 teeth with two canals were selected and root canals obturated (5 teeth with only one canal obturated and 5 with both canals obturated). New periapical and CBCT images were acquired and the examiners identified any unfilled canals. Data analysis compared imaging methods with a significance level of 5%, using McNemar and chi-square tests. In pre-treatment assessment with periapical radiography, 40% of two-canal incisors were interpreted as having only one canal, showing a statistically significant difference (p = 0.002) compared to microCT images. CBCT correctly identified the number of canals in 85.5% and 85.9% of teeth with 1 and 2 canals, respectively, with no significant differences compared to microCT (p = 0.857). For post-treatment assessment, there were no statistically significant differences between periapical radiography and CBCT for the assessment of teeth with one (p = 0.145) or two (p = 0.099) filled canals. While 28% of the teeth with one filled canal was identified in CBCT, 48% of those were identified in periapical radiography. CBCT is superior to periapical radiography in detecting root canals in mandibular incisors before endodontic treatment. However, the diagnostic accuracy of periapical radiographs and CBCT images in post-treatment is impacted by the presence of obturation material.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40813553What 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.