ArticleBMC oral health2026
Photon-counting detector vs. cone-beam CT in endodontics: a study of simulated endodontic conditions, treatments, and associated complications.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the diagnostic performance of photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) at dose-matched radiation levels (high, standard, and low) for detecting and evaluating simulated endodontic conditions, treatments, and associated complications.
methodsSixteen extracted third molars with eight endodontic tasks were imaged using PCD-CT and CBCT. Qualitative (image quality, artifact susceptibility, diagnostic interpretability) and quantitative (endodontic working length) parameters were assessed by two observers using a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics and weighted kappa (κ) were used for data analysis.
resultsHigh- and standard-dose PCD-CT demonstrated superior image quality and anatomical visualization compared to CBCT (median 5, IQR 5-5; κ = 1.0; all p < 0.001). Low-dose PCD-CT remained diagnostically robust, outperforming CBCT, except in root canal visualization, where both performed similarly. Diagnostic accuracy of pathologies and complications was slightly higher with PCD-CT (80-88%) than with CBCT (75-88%). Endodontic working length measurements were consistently accurate across all protocols, with near-perfect inter-observer agreement (κ = 0.84-0.86, all p < 0.001).
conclusionsPCD-CT demonstrated superior diagnostic performance over CBCT across multiple endodontic tasks, particularly at high and standard doses. Even at low doses, PCD-CT maintained robust accuracy and image quality, outperforming dose-matched CBCT in most parameters. Endodontic working length assessment was equally reliable across both modalities. Overall, PCD-CT offers diagnostic advantages over CBCT, particularly in challenging cases involving complex anatomy or high-density materials. Its effective performance at lower radiation levels emphasizes its clinical potential and supports broader implementation in dentomaxillofacial diagnostics.
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.