ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2026
Diagnostic Concordance of Panoramic Radiographs and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and their Influence on Treatment Decision-Making for Impacted Canines.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic concordance between panoramic radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to determine their comparative diagnostic performance in relation to the treatment decision of impacted maxillary canines. Methods: Radiographic records of 51 impacted maxillary canines in 44 patients (37 unilateral and 7 bilateral cases) were analyzed. Panoramic radiographic evaluations included sector classification, the α angle, and the d distance. The KPG index was used in CBCT assessments to determine impaction severity. Results: All imaging parameters showed high intra- and interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients ≥0.927; κ≥0.658; p<0.001). Significant associations were found between the panoramic radiographic parameters (sector, α angle, and d distance) and the CBCT-based KPG index, and between sector classification and buccopalatal position (p<0.05). Regarding treatment decisions, higher parameter values were significantly associated with the choice of surgical extraction (p<0.05). Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated acceptable to excellent discriminatory ability for panoramic radiograph-based and CBCT-based parameters [area under the curve (AUC): 0.715 to 0.843], with no differences among the AUC values (p>0.05). A d distance ≥12.3 mm and an α angle ≥46.1° were identified as thresholds associated with the decision for surgical extraction. Conclusion: Panoramic radiographic parameters demonstrated diagnostic concordance with CBCT, and their performance was comparable to CBCT-based assessment for treatment decisions. The identified 2D thresholds may serve as an effective first-line screening tool for identifying complex cases likely to require surgical extraction, signaling a level of severity at which the superior anatomical detail of CBCT is warranted for precise surgical planning.
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.