ArticleBMC oral health2025
In vitro evaluation of periodontal defects with intraoral radiography and cone beam computed tomography.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
backgroundThis study compared the diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intraoral radiographs (IOR) for detecting periodontal defects. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 67 periodontal defects, including 39 dehiscence, 13 fenestration, and 15 Class III furcation defects, were experimentally created were artificially created on eight dry skull mandibles. The images of these defects were taken with IOR and CBCT. The resulting images were evaluated by two observers in a double-blind manner. Kappa statistics, McNemar and McNemar-Browner tests, Chi-square test, and Bonferroni-corrected Z test were used for statistical analysis.
resultsExcellent intra-observer and inter-observer agreement was observed in our study. In detecting periodontal defects (dehiscence, fenestration, and Class III furcation defect), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were found to be 96%, 64%, and 72%, respectively, for IOR, and 100%, 96%, and 97%, respectively, for CBCT. While the rate of detecting periodontal defects was 49.5% for IOR, it was 70% for CBCT. Statistically significant difference was found between IOR and CBCT in detecting periodontal defects (p = 0.004). Statistically significant difference was found between IOR and CBCT in detecting dehiscence (p = 0.007). No statistically significant difference was found between IOR and CBCT in detecting fenestration and Class III furcation defects.
conclusionsA statistically significant difference was found between CBCT and IOR in terms of the detection of dehiscence, one of the periodontal defects, and CBCT was concluded to be more successful than IOR in the diagnosis of dehiscence defects. No statistically significant difference was found between IOR and CBCT in detecting fenestration and Class III furcation type defects. CBCT was found to be more successful than IOR in detecting defects in the anterior region. However, no difference was found between the two methods in the posterior region.
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.