ArticleEuropean oral research2025
Comparison of the accuracy of different cone beam computed tomography systems in measuring the volume of external root resorption.
Article in European 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy of root resorption volume measurements among three cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices using various imaging parameters. Materials and methods: A total of 42 external root resorption (ERR) defects were mechanically created on the buccal and palatinal surfaces of the roots of seven extracted human teeth. Volume measurements of the defects were performed using three CBCT devices and six different imaging protocols. CBCT measurements were then compared with those calculated from micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) images. Results: The mean absolute error values indicated that the rate of measurement accuracies from best to worst was obtained with KaVo 3D eXam (0.125 mm voxel, 0.2 mm voxel, respectively), Orthophos XG 3D (0.1 mm voxel, 0.16 mm voxel, respectively), and Rainbow CT (0.2 mm voxel, 0.3 mm voxel, respectively). No statistically significant difference was found between any of the CBCT measurements in comparison to the micro-CT evaluations. Conclusion: Although external root resorption is a small object to evaluate using CBCT, larger voxel sizes (e.g., 0.3 mm) of CBCT systems can be employed during scanning without compromising image quality.
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.