ArticleBrazilian oral research2025
Effects of cone-beam computed tomography with different FOV parameters on simulated internal root resorption volume.
Article in Brazilian oral research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The aim of this in-vitro study was to verify which field of view (FOV) in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) yields greater accuracy in the detection of internal root resorption (IRR) volume, in comparison to the gold standard of micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) and to a physical method. Twenty-five extractedsingle-rooted teeth were scanned by CBCT with two different FOV parameters (6x6-FOV and 10x10-FOV) and via micro-CT. The volume of dental hard tissue was measured on these images. A simulated IRR was produced by a demineralization protocol. After the simulated IRR, the volumes of the dental hard tissue and the simulated IRR were measured with the same scanning parameters. In addition, the volume of the simulated IRR was measured via a physical method. The simulated IRR volumes obtained by CBCT, micro-CT, and the physical method were statistically compared using one-way ANOVA. Before the simulated IRR, the mean volume of dental hard tissue obtained by 6x6-FOV, 10x10-FOV, and micro-CT were 266.64 ± 11.56, 284.78 ± 14.99, and 233.07 ± 19.91, respectively. The simulated IRR mean volumes obtained by 6x6-FOV, 10x10-FOV, micro-CT, and the physical method were 19.35 ± 5.92, 17.43 ± 5.20, 23.85 ± 6.63, and 13.51 ± 3.11, respectively. The mean volume of the simulated IRR obtained by micro-CT was similar to that of the 6x6-FOV and was significantly different from that of the 10x10-FOV and physical method. The mean volume value of simulated IRR obtained by the physical method was significantly different from those of the micro-CT and 6x6-FOV groups. In conclusion, the 6x6-FOV was better than the 10x10-FOV for the detection of IRR volume by CBCT under clinical conditions.
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.