ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2015
Evaluation of low-contrast perceptibility in dental restorative materials under the influence of ambient light conditions.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of viewing conditions on the performance assessment of different computer monitors used for dental diagnostics.Imaging science in dentistry · 2021Article
- Impact of room lighting and image display device in the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatments.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess how details on dental restorative composites with different radio-opacities are perceived under the influence of ambient light.
methodsResin composite step wedges (six steps, each 1-mm thick) were custom manufactured from three materials, respectively: (M1) Filtek™ Z350 (3M/ESPE, Saint Paul, MN); (M2) Prisma AP.H™ (Dentsply International Inc., Brazil) and (M3) Glacier(®) (SDI Limited, Victoria, Australia). Each step of the manufactured wedge received three standardized drillings of different diameters and depths. An aluminium (Al) step wedge with 12 steps (1-mm thick) was used as an internal standard to calculate the radio-opacity as pixel intensity values. Standardized digital images of the set were obtained, and 11 observers independently recorded the images, noting the number of noticeable details (drillings) under 2 dissimilar conditions: in a light environment (light was turned on in the room) and in low-light conditions (light in the room was turned off). The differences between images in terms of the number of details that were observed were statistically compared using ANOVA, Cronbach's alpha coefficient and Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis tests, with a significance level setting of 5% (α = 0.05).
resultsThe M2 showed higher radio-opacity, the M1 displayed intermediate radio-opacity and the M3 showed lower radio-opacity, respectively; however, all three were without significance (p > 0.05) compared with each other. The differences in radio-opacity resulted in a significant variation (p < 0.05) in the number of noticeable details in the image, which were influenced by characteristics of details, in addition to the ambient-light level.
conclusionsThe radio-opacity of materials and ambient light can affect the perception of details in digital radiographic images.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.