ArticleScientific reports2025
Volumetric analysis of simulated bone defects: a comparative study using cone beam computed tomography and intraoral scanners.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy and reliability of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intraoral scanner (IOS) in measuring the volume of simulated bone defects. Additionally, it aimed to assess how the number of missing cortical bony walls in a bone defect affects the accuracy of volumetric measurements. Bovine rib blocks were used to create 42 simulated bone defects, which were then divided equally into two groups. One cortical plate was perforated in Group I, whereas both the buccal and lingual cortical plates were perforated in Group II. Defect volumes were assessed using CBCT and IOS. Every measurement was compared to a gold standard derived using Archimedes' principle. Volumetric analysis revealed that the IOS measurements in both groups showed no statistically significant difference when compared to the gold standard. CBCT measurements in Group I also showed no significant difference from the gold standard. However, in Group II, CBCT volumetric measurements differed significantly from the gold standard (p = 0.001). Both CBCT and IOS demonstrated accuracy in measuring bone defects when only one cortical wall was perforated. However, when both cortical plates were lost, IOS showed superior accuracy compared to CBCT segmentation. IOS measurements had no significant deviation from the gold standard volume (P = 0.88), while CBCT measurements exhibited a significant deviation (P = 0.001). Therefore, IOS presents a reliable, radiation-free alternative for monitoring volumetric bone defects across different degrees of cortical bone loss.
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.