Objective <p>High-resolution CT (HR-CT) cannot image trabecular bone due to insufficient spatial resolution. Ultra-high-resolution CT may be a valuable alternative. We aimed to describe the accuracy of Canon Medical HR, super-high-resolution (SHR), and ultra-high-resolution (UHR)-CT in measuring trabecular bone microarchitectural parameters using micro-CT as a reference.</p> Material and methods <p>Sixteen cadaveric distal tibial epiphyses were enrolled in this pre-clinical study. Images were acquired with HR-CT (i.e., 0.5&#xa0;mm slice thickness/512² matrix) and SHR-CT (i.e., 0.25&#xa0;mm slice thickness and 1024² matrix) with and without deep learning reconstruction (DLR) and UHR-CT (i.e., 0.25&#xa0;mm slice thickness/2048² matrix) without DLR. Trabecular bone parameters were compared.</p> Results <p>Trabecular thickness was closest with UHR-CT but remained 1.37 times that of micro-CT (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). With SHR-CT without and with DLR, it was 1.75 and 1.79 times that of micro-CT, respectively (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001), and 3.58 and 3.68 times that of micro-CT with HR-CT without and with DLR, respectively (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). Trabecular separation was 0.7 times that of micro-CT with UHR-CT (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001), 0.93 and 0.94 times that of micro-CT with SHR-CT without and with DLR (<i>P</i> = 0.36 and 0.79, respectively), and 1.52 and 1.36 times that of micro-CT with HR-CT without and with DLR (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). Bone volume/total volume was overestimated (i.e., 1.66 to 1.92 times that of micro-CT) by all techniques (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). However, HR-CT values were superior to UHR-CT values (<i>P</i> = 0.03 and 0.01, without and with DLR, respectively).</p> Conclusion <p>UHR and SHR-CT were the closest techniques to micro-CT and surpassed HR-CT.</p>