ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2026
Comparative evaluation of direct and digital measurements of peri-implant defects using CBCT, ultrasound, and intraoral scanning.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2026. 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
objectivesTo compare the measurement accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), high-resolution ultrasound (US), and intraoral scanning (IOS) with the gold-standard direct method in the measurement of peri-implant bone defects.
methodsForty standard-threaded and 38 aggressive-threaded (Aggressor) implants-identical in diameter and length (4.3/10 mm) but differing in macro-thread design-were placed into bovine rib bones in vitro. Dehiscence, 2/3-wall, and 4-wall (circumferential) defects were prepared around the implants. Each defect was measured for maximum width, depth, and height using CBCT, US, IOS, and direct manual measurement. Analyses were performed using the general linear model (ANOVA). A P-value < .05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsIntra-operator and inter-operator agreement showed high reliability (Gage R&R below 10%). For maximum width, defect type (F = 894.81, P < .001), method (F = 6.76, P < .001), and implant type (F = 5.39, P = .021) were significant. For maximum depth, defect type (F = 861.12, P < .001) and method (F = 3.39, P = .018) were significant. For maximum height, method (F = 12.62, P < .001) and defect type (F = 38.91, P < .001) were significant. The model demonstrated high explanatory power for width (R2 = 75.9%) and depth (R2 = 76.6%) measurements but lower for height (R2 = 20.7%). CBCT provided the most consistent results relative to direct measurements, followed by US, whereas IOS showed greater deviations.
conclusionsCBCT showed the highest agreement with direct measurements, followed by US, while IOS exhibited greater variability. Defect type and measurement modality were the primary determinants of accuracy. These findings indicate that CBCT and US can be considered reliable tools for assessing peri-implant bone defects.
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.