ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of the Accuracy of Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Radiographic Assessment of Bony Defects Before and After Endodontic Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) imaging for the assessment of healing in bony defects before and after endodontic surgery. METHODOLOGY: A total of 92 patients with a history of dental trauma and associated periapical pathology involving the anterior and premolar teeth of the maxilla and mandible were included in the study. Preoperative imaging comprised 2D intraoral periapical radiographs (IOPARs) and 3D cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of the region of interest. Endodontic surgery was performed in all patients following prior root canal treatment (RCT), and the bony defects were managed using platelet-rich fibrin (PRF). At one-year follow-up, both 2D and 3D imaging were repeated. Lesion area on 2D IOPARs was measured using ImageJ software, whereas volumetric analysis was performed on CBCT images using ITK-SNAP.
resultsThe mean percentage reduction in lesion area was 91.31% ± 10.14%, whereas the mean volumetric reduction was significantly lower at 78.27% ± 16.00%. Median values were 95.21% (interquartile range (IQR): 15.74%) for area reduction and 75.78% (IQR: 27.18%) for volume reduction. The ranges further highlighted this discrepancy, with area reductions spanning 65.14-100% and volume reductions spanning 37.08-100%.
conclusionWhile 2D IOPARs are convenient for routine evaluation, they overestimate periapical healing compared with 3D volumetric assessment. CBCT combined with ITK-SNAP provides a more accurate, objective, and clinically reliable evaluation of postoperative bone healing, thereby supporting evidence-based endodontic practice.
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.