ArticleJournal of oral & facial pain and headache2026
Usage of Hounsffeld unit to differentiate idiopathic condylar resorption: a preliminary study.
Article in Journal of oral & facial pain and headache, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Hounsfield unit (HU) is a quantitative scale used to describe radiodensity in computed tomography (CT) scans. Since idiopathic condylar resorption (ICR) and temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJOA) involve destruction of bone and cartilage in the mandibular condyle, we hypothesized that HU values might be used to differentiate between the two conditions. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of HU values in the differential diagnosis of ICR and TMJOA.
methodsTwelve TMJOA and 9 ICR patients, and 11 healthy subjects were recruited as the TMJOA, ICR, and control groups, respectively. CT scans were performed, and HU values were measured in the region of interest (ROI) with 5 mm thickness along the Z-axis from superior condylar surfaces. HU distributions were then analyzed for each ROI.
resultsControl and TMJOA patients were significantly older than those in the ICR group. Median HU values of the mandibular condyle did not differ significantly among the three groups. All groups showed a unimodal HU distribution peaking at 250-450 HU, while ICR condyles exhibited a tendency to have an additional peak at 1350-1500 HU. Compared to the control group, the HU distribution of the TMJOA and ICR condyles was significantly lower at 250-450 HU. After age adjustment, significant intergroup differences in the voxel ratio were noted at each HU level at 250-300, 300-350, 400-450, 1400-1450, and 1800-1850 HU. However, no significant differences in HU values were observed between the ICR and TMJOA groups.
conclusionsHU values and distributions of the mandibular condyle may be used to differentiate between the control group and the ICR and TMJOA groups. Further studies with a sufficient sample size are needed to confirm whether HU values and distribution could become important indicators for distinguishing between the TMJOA and ICR condyles.
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.