ArticleBMC oral health2026
Optimizing CBCT acquisition for detecting non-displaced dentoalveolar fractures: effects of field of view and resolution mode.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography for detecting non-displaced dentoalveolar process fractures using an ex vivo sheep head model, and to compare acquisition protocols differing in field of view (FOV) and manufacturer-defined resolution mode.
methodsThirty sheep heads underwent baseline cone-beam computed tomography to confirm the absence of pre-existing fractures, followed by controlled mechanical loading. Fracture status (present/absent) was established by direct surgical inspection after imaging. Each specimen was scanned using four predefined protocols combining two FOV settings (8 × 16 cm and 18 × 16 cm) and two resolution modes (standard and high), with voxel size varying across protocols. Four blinded experts assessed fracture presence (binary decision) and confidence (five-point scale); repeat readings after one month were used to estimate intraobserver agreement. Diagnostic discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve derived from confidence scores, while sensitivity and specificity were calculated from binary decisions.
resultsAll protocols showed high discrimination (area under the curve, 0.817-0.917), with the best performance for the 18 × 16 cm high-resolution protocol (sensitivity 83.3%; specificity 100.0%). Within the same FOV, high-resolution imaging improved discrimination compared with standard-resolution imaging; however, no meaningful difference was observed between the two high-resolution protocols. Interobserver agreement was substantial (Fleiss kappa 0.67-0.84) and intraobserver agreement was substantial to almost perfect (Cohen kappa 0.605-1.000).
conclusionsSpatial resolution was the dominant driver of diagnostic performance and reader confidence for non-displaced dentoalveolar fractures, whereas enlarging the FOV provided limited additional benefit once high-resolution imaging was used.
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.