ArticleScientific reports2026
Consensus-based radiographic threshold for identifying vertical periodontal bone loss: an international observer study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiographic assessment of periodontal bone loss is essential for diagnosis and staging of periodontitis, yet the distinction between horizontal and vertical bone loss remains largely based on subjective visual interpretation without a defined quantitative reference. This study aimed to identify a consensus-based angular threshold used by clinicians to classify interproximal bone loss as vertical on dental radiographs and to evaluate factors influencing this interpretation. An international panel of periodontists evaluated digitally modified radiographs in which interproximal bone levels were simulated at angles ranging from 0° to 35° relative to the line connecting adjacent cementoenamel junctions. Seventy complete responses from specialists in 22 countries were analyzed. The likelihood of vertical classification increased with angular deviation, with a marked transition in interpretation between approximately 20° and 30°. A 35° angle achieved the predefined ≥ 70% agreement threshold across seven of eight sites, representing the most consistent consensus threshold. Mandibular sites were more frequently classified as vertical, while angled cementoenamel junction alignment increased false-positive rates, and clinician demographics had no significant effect. Mixed-model analysis demonstrated significant clinician-level variability, confirming observer-dependent interpretation. These findings, which have educational implications, provide a reproducible reference for radiographic interpretation of vertical bone loss.
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.