ArticleBioinformation2025
Efficiency of 2D versus 3D CT scans in maxillofacial trauma: A retrospective study.
Article in Bioinformation, 2025. 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.
- Integrated management of mandibular fractures and traumatic dental injuries: a literature review and clinical algorithm proposal.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The transition from 2D CT slices to 3D CT volume rendering reconstructions has significantly improved the precision of the trauma diagnoses and broadened the range of potential treatments. Using a 64-slice CT scanner, the fracture detection score and fracture comparative score were used to compare 2D and 3D fracture cases for detection and diagnosis. The study comprised 200 maxillofacial fracture cases. 2D CT cuts detected 100% of fractures, but 3D cuts missed 4%. In 66.66% of fracture score combinations, 2D CT slices could improve diagnosis. This study showed that 2D CT cuts are better at fracture identification and diagnosis than 3D CT reconstruction cuts. 3D CT cuts show displaced fractures overall; however, they are confined to minimally displaced fracture segments and nasal and ocular fracture locations.
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.