ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
A comparison of panoramic views reformatted from CBCT scans using manual or automated workflows: an evaluation of geometric accuracy and subjective image quality.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare (1) the geometric accuracy and (2) subjective image quality of CBCT reformatted panoramic images generated using three reconstruction workflows: automatic reconstruction, nasal spine plane-oriented manual reconstruction, and occlusal plane-oriented manual reconstruction. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-eight CBCT datasets were included. Three panoramic reconstruction protocols were assessed. Linear measurements were obtained on axial images (as a reference) and on the corresponding reformatted panoramic images. Measurements included (for geometric accuracy): mesiodistal crown width of a selected maxillary central incisor; inter-radicular distance at the alveolar crest between adjacent anterior teeth; and panoramic interslice distance (PISD), defined as the distance between the primary panoramic line (center of the panoramic curve) and the secondary panoramic line at the measurement site. A 7-item binary visual scoring system was used to compare subjective image quality across protocols.
resultsCrown-level measurements differed significantly between axial images and reformatted panoramic images across all protocols. Bone-level measurements showed significant differences in G1 and G3, while there was no significant difference in the G2 protocol. In all groups, measurement error (absolute and percentage) showed a significant positive correlation with PISD. Subjective image quality scores differed across protocols.
conclusionsCBCT-reformatted panorama demonstrated protocol-dependent differences for linear measurements and subjective image quality. Measurement errors increased as the measurement sites deviated from the center of the drawn panoramic curve. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Reformatted panorama requires cautious interpretation and should not be relied upon for precise quantitative assessments. Cross-verification with other views is essential before definitive clinical decisions.
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.