ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effect of CBCT voxel size and software program on the detection of fenestrations and dehiscences.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study investigated the effect of CBCT voxel size and software program on the accuracy of detecting fenestrations and dehiscences. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis ex-vivo experimental animal study was carried out on 6 fleshy sheep heads with both maxilla and mandible accompanied with the surrounding soft tissue. Fenestrations [n = 48] and dehiscences [n = 51] were randomly created on the buccal surfaces of teeth. Two CBCT scans were acquired for each sheep head using two different voxel sizes [0.2 mm and 0.4 mm]. Images were analyzed by two oral radiologists on two different software programs [OnDemand and ImplaStation]. All data was collected and analyzed in terms of diagnostic performance measures.
resultsFor fenestrations, both voxel sizes and software programs showed high diagnostic performance, with approximately 94% accuracy and sensitivity, 95% specificity, and a low false positive rate of about 5%. For dehiscences, performance was more limited, with around 70% accuracy and sensitivity, 60–67% specificity, and a higher false positive rate of 33–40%. None of the investigated parameters showed statistically significant differences.
conclusionChanges in voxel size and software program had little impact on the diagnostic accuracy for detecting fenestrations and dehiscences. CBCT demonstrated good performance in identifying fenestrations but only moderate capability in detecting dehiscences. These results indicate that, although CBCT is a useful imaging tool, its contribution to diagnosing dehiscences is limited by factors such as volume averaging and partial volume effects, and should therefore be interpreted with caution in clinical settings. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinically, the findings suggest that choosing between 0.2 mm and 0.4 mm voxel sizes, or between different viewing software programs OnDemand and ImplaStation, does not meaningfully affect the ability to diagnose fenestrations and dehiscences. This provides flexibility in routine practice, allowing clinicians to select imaging settings based on practical considerations such as field of view, dose, or workflow, without compromising diagnostic confidence.
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.