ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparative assessment of CBCT and digital radiography in quantifying periapical pathology (in vitro study).
Article in BMC oral health, 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
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of phosphor plate-based digital periapical radiography (DPR) and CBCT in quantifying periapical lesions compared to the reference standard. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis in vitro study included 45 premolar teeth with simulated periapical lesions created in dry human mandibles. The lesions were categorized into three groups according to size. All specimens were imaged using DPR with the paralleling technique (70-80kVp, 8mA, 0.16-0.32s). CBCT imaging was performed using the i-CAT Next Generation system (120kVp, 5mA, 26.9s, 0.25mm voxel size). Lesion lengths obtained from both imaging modalities were compared with the actual lesion dimensions (reference standard) to assess diagnostic accuracy. Intra-examiner reliability was evaluated.
resultsGroup I's mean lesion length was 1.2mm, Group II's was 1.5mm, and Group III's was 1.8mm. In comparison to the reference standard, PR frequently overestimated the length of lesions. CBCT, on the other hand, showed better accuracy, and greater consistency. A propensity to underestimate minor lesions was indicated by the mean CBCT measurement of 1.07 ± 0.20mm at 1.2 mm group (p = 0.020). At 1.5mm, CBCT assessed 1.72 ± 0.19mm (p = 0.001) while no significant difference observed at 1.8mm (p = 0.065).
conclusionsWhile CBCT is more reliable than PR, its precision is influenced by lesion size, performing most accurately with larger periapical pathologies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Periapical radiography should be interpreted with caution when assessing periapical pathology, as it may lead to overestimation of lesion size. In contrast, CBCT can be regarded as the reference standard, especially for lesions larger than 1.5mm.
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.