Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Comparing reproducibility among observers for low-, standard-, and high-dose protocols of CBCT assessing anatomical landmarks and pathology related to third molars: An ex vivo study.

Created on 06 Oct 2026

Authors

Elias Rezai, Louise Hauge Matzen, Laurits Kaaber, Lars Schropp

Published in

Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology. Sep 03, 2026. Epub Sep 03, 2026.

Abstract

To assess the reliability of low-dose(LD) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) protocols for radiographic assessment of third molars, including anatomical structures and related pathology, compared with standard-dose(SD) and high-dose(HD) protocols across three CBCT units.
This ex vivo study included 25 teeth from nine anonymized human skulls, each with one to four impacted third molars. Each tooth was scanned using HD, SD, and LD protocols on three CBCT units. Radiographic parameters were assessed by multiple observers, and inter- and intra-observer agreement was statistically analysed.
Inter-observer agreement varied substantially across diagnostic parameters, CBCT units, and dose protocols, with κ values generally ranging from moderate to almost perfect agreement. Pronounced variability among observer pairs was observed for certain parameters within the same protocol and unit. No consistent reduction in reproducibility was observed when lowering the dose from HD to SD to LD. Intra-observer reproducibility was generally high.
Reproducibility in the assessment of third molars was primarily influenced by the diagnostic parameter and the observer rather than by CBCT dose level or unit. Lowering dose did not result in a consistent change in reproducibility. These findings indicate that LD protocols may provide sufficient reproducibility for third molar-related assessments.

PMID:
42833983
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 06 Oct 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 12
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement