ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparative reliability and agreement of CBCT-based measurement approaches for assessing maxillary transverse deficiency.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing Deep Learning Models for Identifying Maxillary Transverse Deficiency from Intraoral Photographs.International dental journal · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) enables three-dimensional evaluation of maxillary transverse relationships; however, no consensus exists regarding which CBCT-based diagnostic approach should be used, and the reliability and diagnostic consistency of available systems remain unclear. In this study, the reproducibility and diagnostic agreement of four established CBCT-based transverse assessment methods were compared.
methodsNinety-eight patients (mean age: 21.57 years) underwent CBCT. Four diagnostic systems—Penn transverse analysis (PTA), Miner CBCT transverse analysis (CBTA), Yonsei transverse analysis (YTA), and Case Western Reserve University transverse analysis (CWRUTA)—were applied. Two calibrated examiners performed all the measurements twice with a two-week interval. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Dahlberg’s error, and Bland–Altman analyses. Diagnostic agreement was evaluated using Cohen’s kappa and cross-method comparisons across skeletal subtypes.
resultsAll four methods demonstrated acceptable reproducibility (ICC > 0.75), but variation existed across measurements. Compared with inclination-dependent parameters, skeletal width measurements were more repeatable. YTA demonstrated the highest overall reliability and the smallest systematic and random errors, whereas the inclination variables in CWRUTA exhibited the greatest variability and systematic bias. Diagnostic agreement varied across systems and was not interchangeable. YTA and CBTA showed the strongest agreement, whereas CWRUTA classified the greatest proportion of patients as deficient. Agreement increased in skeletal Class III and was lowest in Class II.
conclusionsCBCT-based transverse diagnostic systems differ in both measurement reproducibility and diagnostic output. YTA demonstrated the most consistent performance and may serve as a reliable primary assessment tool, whereas inclination-based analyses should be interpreted cautiously and in a clinical context. Because no single method fully captures skeletal and dentoalveolar dimensions, a combined diagnostic approach may be more appropriate until standardized criteria and automated CBCT analysis tools become available.
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.