ArticleJournal of dental sciences2026
Quantitative comparison of enamel-dentin and dentin-pulp distances between cone-beam computed tomography and histological sections: An ex vivo study.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has become an essential imaging tool in dentistry for evaluating internal tooth morphology. However, its quantitative accuracy in representing true enamel-dentin (E-D) and dentin-pulp (D-P) distances remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare CBCT-derived measurements with histological references and to assess depth-dependent discrepancies across tooth sections. Materials and methods: A total of 18 extracted human teeth were sectioned bucco-lingually and analyzed using both CBCT and histological microscopy. For each tooth, three representative slices were selected: the first and last slices containing pulp tissue, and one at the midpoint. E-D and D-P distances were measured digitally and compared between modalities using paired Results: CBCT consistently overestimated E-D distances compared with histology, particularly near the pulp chamber, whereas D-P differences showed greater variability. Weak to moderate linear correlations were observed between modalities (E-D: r = 0.45; D-P: r = 0.34). Bland-Altman analysis indicated a mean bias of +0.26 mm for E-D and -0.09 mm for D-P, suggesting a trend toward systematic overestimation in enamel-dentin regions and inconsistent deviation patterns in deeper dentin-pulp zones. Conclusion: While CBCT provides clinically acceptable accuracy in quantifying intra-tooth structures, it tends to overestimate enamel-dentin thickness in deeper regions. These findings underline the need for refined imaging calibration to enhance quantitative reliability in endodontic and restorative applications.
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.