ArticleOdontology2026
Evaluating micro-CT as a tool for advanced research in prosthetic dentistry: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Odontology, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinicians must evaluate prosthetic fit, material behavior, and in vivo performance to ensure clinical success; therefore, this review examines the role of micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) in prosthetic dentistry research. The research question framed as "Does micro-CT imaging improve the precision and detail in prosthetic dentistry research as opposed to standard evaluation methods?" (PROSPERO registration ID CRD420251047674). Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for studies published between January 2014 and December 2024. Eligible studies included in vitro and ex vivo investigations using micro-CT for quantitative assessment of prosthetic restorations. Methodological quality was appraised with CRIS and risk of bias was evaluated using QUIN tool. Data were pooled using RevMan software, with heterogeneity assessed via I
Indexed as
Identifiers
41935236What 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.