ArticleInternational endodontic journal2026
Practitioners' Perceptions of Augmented and Virtual Reality in Endodontic Treatment Planning: A Pilot Study.
Article in International endodontic journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo develop a streamlined software workflow for converting cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data into augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) formats, and to evaluate dental practitioners' perceptions of these advanced visualisation modalities compared to conventional CBCT analysis for endodontic treatment planning. METHODOLOGY: A custom add-on for Blender (an open-source 3D modelling software), named VirtualEndo, was developed to automate the processing of AI-segmented CBCT scans into AR- and VR-compatible formats. Thirty dentists evaluated two diagnostically challenging cases using four methods: conventional CBCT analysis, AI-driven 3D segmentation, AR visualisation on iPad and VR visualisation with Meta Quest 3. The presentation order was randomised, and participants completed a standardised training protocol. Perceptions regarding diagnostic confidence, usability, information extraction, and clinical relevance were assessed using 4-point Likert scales. Statistical analysis employed Friedman tests with post hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Bonferroni correction.
resultsSignificant differences were found across all evaluated categories (p < 0.05). Conventional CBCT was rated significantly inferior to Segmentation, VR, and AR for information extraction (canal course: W = 0.68; canal number: W = 0.56) and usability (W = 0.40). No significant differences existed between the three advanced visualisation methods. Segmentation was most frequently selected as clinically most relevant (40%), followed by VR (20%). For canal detection, differences were small (W = 0.10) with no method demonstrating clear superiority.
conclusionsModern 3D visualisation technologies were perceived as significantly superior to conventional 2D CBCT slice analysis, primarily by presenting pre-integrated anatomical models that reduce the perceived cognitive burden of mental 3D reconstruction from 2D slices. Screen-based segmentation was favoured for pragmatic workflow integration, though immersive technologies showed promise if adoption barriers are addressed.
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.