ArticleBMC oral health2025
Repeatability of gray value-based bone density measurements in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images under different acquisition protocols.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bone lid technique versus standard curettage for maxillofacial cysts: a prospective 3D CBCT study of bone regeneration and tooth stability.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Comparative Radiopacity of Additively Manufactured Permanent and Temporary Resins and Conventional Resin-Based Composites.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Comment on "Clinical and radiographic assessment of effect of platelet-rich fibrin on dental implant osseointegration - A split mouth randomized clinical trial".Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Article
- Response to the letter to the editor "Clinical and radiographic assessment of effect of platelet rich fibrin on dental implant osseointegration - A split mouth randomized clinical trial".Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Article
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
backgroundAccurate and repeatable assessment of bone density is a critical factor in dental implant planning, as it influences decisions related to implant size, site preparation, and primary stability, ultimately affecting treatment outcomes and long-term osseointegration. The variability in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) gray values across different acquisition protocols can compromise measurement repeatability, challenging the reliability of preoperative bone assessments. This study aimed to assess the repeatability of a gray value-based bone density measurement tool along three-thirds of a virtual implant in CBCT under different acquisition protocols.
methodsThree pork ribs (5 × 3 × 2 cm) were scanned three times each using a VistaVoxS 3D CBCT scanner under four acquisition protocols, varying field-of-view (5 × 5 and 13 × 5), kVp (98, 94, 79), mA (11, 9, 6), and voxel size (0.08 and 0.2 mm), resulting in 144 scans. A virtual implant (10 × 5.2 mm) was centered on each rib image, and gray values along the thirds of the implant were measured using AIS 3DAPP 5.0 software. Repeatability was assessed with Friedman's test, Kendall's agreement coefficient, and the chi-square test.
resultsThe mean CBCT gray values in the cervical region were significantly lower regardless of the protocol (p ≤ 0.5). Individual exposures differed but showed very good agreement (0.89-0.83).
conclusionsThe bone density tool showed reliable gray value measurements across CBCT protocols, with field of view affecting repeatability more than voxel size. Significant gray value differences in the cervical region highlight the need for cautious interpretation in this area. Standardizing imaging settings is recommended to improve implant planning accuracy.
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.