ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in estimating the 18-year age threshold: a retrospective study.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe third molar maturity index (I3M) method, introduced for application on panoramic radiographs, is used to assess whether an individual has reached the legal 18-year age threshold. This study aimed to evaluate the applicability of the I3M method to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and to compare the results with those obtained from panoramic radiographs of the same patients.
methodsPatients who had already received both CBCT scans and panoramic radiographs were selected retrospectively. The maturity index values of 418 mandibular third molars were obtained through measurements using both CBCT scans and panoramic radiographs. The accuracy of the I3M method for both radiological methods was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, misclassification rate, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and overall area under the ROC curve (AUROC) at the 95% confidence interval (CI) level were calculated as performance measures for both imaging modalities.
resultsBoth imaging modalities showed excellent diagnostic performance, with AUROC values of 0.928 for CBCT and 0.932 for panoramic radiography. The sensitivity of CBCT was 82.0%, the specificity was 89.7%, and the misclassification rate was 14.1%. For panoramic radiography, the sensitivity was 85.1%, the specificity was 86.8%, and the misclassification rate was 18.1%. The PLR and NLR values for CBCT were 7.96 and 0.20, respectively, whereas those for panoramic radiography were 6.43 and 0.17, respectively. Additionally, the PPV and NPV values for CBCT were 0.943 and 0.705, respectively, and those for panoramic radiography were 0.930 and 0.738, respectively.
conclusionsThe results indicated that the accuracy of the I3M method for CBCT scans was similar to that for panoramic radiographs from the same individuals. Importantly, the I3M method used to estimate the legal 18-year age threshold can also be used for CBCT scans, as it enables the use of existing CBCT images in age estimation studies.
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.