This result showed the applicability of the CT to measure the volume of defects selleck ( Table I and Table II). An analysis was also performed of the averages obtained by examiners 1 and 2 during the measurements performed in MSCT using the dry skulls compared with the GS for our research. Analyzing the volumes calculated by the 2 examiners at the same time, it was confirmed that the measures, on average, were very similar (Table I) and statistically equal: P = .997 (P > .01; Table III). The average of both examiners’ results was equal to the GS with a reliability of 99%. This demonstrates the reproducibility of the assessment

of bone defects in cleft palate and alveolar ridge regions using MSCT. In this section, an analysis was performed of the averages obtained by observer 1 during the 2 measurements in CBCT and compared with the GS of our

research (Table IV and Table V). It was observed that the volumes on average obtained by the same researcher at 2 different times using CBCT were statistically equal: P = .989 (P > .01) and statistically similar to the GS results. This demonstrates the effectiveness of CBCT in the assessment of bone volume in a region with fissure defects in the alveolar ridge and hard palate. In this section, an analysis was performed of the averages obtained by observers 1 and 2 during the measurements performed in CBCT, and the results were compared with the GS of our research (Table IV and Table VI). Performing AT13387 concentration the same test to assess

Farnesyltransferase the volumes in CBCT with 2 different examiners, the results were similar to those found with the MSCT. It was observed that on average the amounts taken by evaluators 1 and 2 were statistically equal among themselves (P = .974 [P > .01]) and equal compared with the GS of our analysis. This demonstrates the great reproducibility of CBCT in the assessment of volume defects in oral clefts. The correlation was also found of the results obtained by the 2 different CT scanners to assess the existence of discrepancies between the results. Performing the test for analysis of the average volumes obtained by CBCT and MSCT scanners, it was observed that they were statistically equal (P = .937 [P > .01]), and the results were equal compared with the GS results ( Table VII and Table VIII). We can then consider that, on average, the CBCT-calculated volumes were equal to MSCT and to the GS, showing no statistically significant difference between the 2 types of CT scanners in the assessment of bone defects in oral clefts. The study of craniofacial development anomalies has received great emphasis in dentistry through the improvement of diagnostic, restorative, and rehabilitative techniques performed by the association of a multidisciplinary team. In this context, oral clefts comprise a malformation in which dentists play a fundamental role in healing and rehabilitation of affected patients.