Diagnostic Efficacy of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in Chronic Periodontitis—A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chronic periodontitis (CP) is differentiated by progressive loss of periodontal bone. Two-dimensional radiography often fails to exactly identify the extent and morphology of bone defects. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) provides three-dimensional (3D) imaging, potentially improving diagnostic accuracy. Objective: To systematically assess the diagnostic effectiveness of CBCT in comparison to conventional imaging in CP. Methods: A search of electronic databases was conducted between 2000 and May 2024. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews 2020 requirements were followed in this review, which was registered in PROSPERO with ID CRD42024590967. Two reviewers extracted the data after carefully evaluating the studies for eligibility requirements, and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to do a complete excellence check on the chosen records. Results: Seventeen research studies fulfil the inclusion measures, showing an overall moderate to minimal chance of bias. Owing to high heterogeneity in study design and reporting, meta-analysis was not feasible. Narrative synthesis revealed that CBCT offers greater accuracy, reproducibility, and 3D visualization of periodontal bone defects, particularly for furcation involvement and bone loss, compared to conventional radiography. Conclusion: CBCT provides enhanced diagnostic accuracy and detailed visualization of periodontal bone loss, supporting its value in managing CP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".