ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Panoramic Radiography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Assessing the Position of Impacted Maxillary Canines.
Article in Cureus, 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
introductionThis study aimed to assess the clinical applicability of a panoramic radiograph (PR)-based threshold angle for distinguishing the buccopalatal position of impacted maxillary canines, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) as a reference for verification.
methodsA total of 152 impacted maxillary canines from 129 patients were evaluated. The angle of each impacted canine was measured on PR between the long axis of the tooth and the intermolar line. CBCT was used as a reference standard to confirm the buccopalatal position of each canine. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the optimal PR-based angle threshold value for distinguishing buccal and palatal impactions.
resultsThe intraobserver reliability for PR angle measurements was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.957). An optimal PR angle threshold value of 50.4° was identified for differentiating buccal from palatal impactions. However, this value did not achieve statistical significance in the overall cohort (p = 0.106; sensitivity = 52.6%, specificity = 70.2%). In the subgroup of unilaterally impacted canines, the same threshold value reached statistical significance (p < 0.05) with a sensitivity of 62% and a specificity of 75%. Despite these findings, the predictive accuracy of PR remained insufficient for reliable clinical application.
conclusionThe study demonstrated that a PR-based angle threshold value of 50.4° can provide a preliminary estimation of the buccopalatal position of impacted maxillary canines, but its diagnostic accuracy is limited. CBCT remains the preferred method for definitive localization.
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.