ArticleBrazilian dental journal2026
Cone beam computed tomography vs. Periapical Radiograph: Diagnostic accuracy in endo and periodontal lesions.
Article in Brazilian dental journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative assessment of CBCT and digital radiography in quantifying periapical pathology (in vitro study).BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Radiographic and cone-beam computed tomography characterization of Chevron lucency in 82 clinically healthy maxillary canine teeth of dogs: a retrospective descriptive study.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dental specialists when assessing endodontic and periodontal lesions using periapical radiography (PR) alone and PR combined with cone-beam computed tomography (PR+CBCT).
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 30 endodontists and 30 periodontists evaluated ten clinical cases involving endodontic and periodontal tissues at two time points. The cases included vertical root fractures/fissures, endodontic perforation, persistent apical periodontitis, concomitant endo-periodontal injury, and localized periodontitis. Initially, participants reviewed clinical data and periapical radiographs for each case, formulating a diagnostic hypothesis via a structured questionnaire. Subsequently, CBCT images were introduced, and participants reassessed the images and reached a diagnosis again. The correct diagnosis, as established by the dentist responsible for each case, was included as one of the answer choices. Diagnostic accuracy for overall and specific lesion types after incorporating CBCT was analyzed using the McNemar test, with statistical significance set at 5%.
resultsThe overall percentage of correct diagnoses was 67.2% for PR+CBCT and 42.2% for PR. PR+CBCT provided accurate diagnoses in 58.8% of cases for both specialties. Regarding lesion type, PR+CBCT correctly identified a greater number of endo-periodontal lesions with and without root damage compared to PR alone.
conclusionsPR+CBCT significantly improves diagnostic accuracy for both endodontists and periodontists in cases involving both pulp and periodontal tissues.
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.