Introduction

The visibility of mandibular canal (MC) at molar implant sites is critical for safe implant planning. While cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is the modality of choice, it remains unclear whether the choice of viewing software influences MC visibility.

Objectives

This study compared the visibility of MC at molar implant sites using native acquisition software (Kodak CS 3D) and third-party software (InVivoDental).

Material and methods

CBCT scans of 300 molar implant sites were retrospectively assessed. Two observers scored MC visibility on cross-sectional slices using a four-point scale (0 = poor to 3 = excellent). Comparisons were made with Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and interobserver agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).

Results

Visibility scores were identical in 269/300 sites. In 26 sites, Kodak software yielded higher scores, whereas InVivo software scored higher values in 5 sites. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Interobserver agreement was excellent for both programs (ICC ≥ 0.81).

Conclusions

MC visibility was largely comparable between Kodak and InVivo, with a small but statistically significant advantage for Kodak. While third-party software performs similarly in most cases, native software may provide a marginal benefit. Clinicians are advised to interpret mandibular canal visibility with awareness of software-dependent differences, and to prioritize consistency in software selection during implant planning.