ArticleBMC oral health2026
Longitudinal reliability of upper airway assessment using cone-beam computed tomography: a retrospective study.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo explore the consistency of upper airway measurements derived from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images in adults without intervening therapy.
methodsCBCT images of 30 patients who underwent microscrew implantation or individual tooth restoration were retrospectively analysed. Scans were acquired at 2 time points using an indentical standardized protocol, with no intervening treatment affecting the dentofacial complex. The volumes and heights of the total upper airway, and the nasopharyngeal, palatopharyngeal, glossopharyngeal, and hypopharyngeal segments, along with cranio-cervical angle at the C2, C3 and C4 levels, were measured by 2 independent examiners. Intra- and inter-examiner reliability were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and interclass correlation coefficients, respectively, with 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsIntra- and inter-examiner reliability was good to excellent for all measured parameters (ICCs > 0.80). Significant differences between time points were observed for nasopharyngeal volume (6577.79 ± 2061.56 mm3 vs. 6942.93 ± 1836.83 mm3, P = 0.013), total airway height (73.79 ± 9.12 mm vs. 71.42 ± 7.04 mm, P = 0.024) and hypopharyngeal height (13.64 ± 2.44 mm vs. 12.55 ± 2.93 mm, P = 0.023). No significant differences were observed for other volumetric or linear airway parameters, nor for cranio-cervical angles (P > 0.05).
conclusionWhen a standardized scanning protocol is applied, CBCT provides good longitudinal consistency for most upper airway dimensions in untreated adults. However, nasopharyngeal volume and airway height measurements demonstrate greater temporal variability and should be interpreted with caution in longitudinal assessments.
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.