ArticleImaging science in dentistry2015
The reliability of tablet computers in depicting maxillofacial radiographic landmarks.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does a mobile interactive web application improve dental students' panoramic radiograph interpretation skills? A pre-post educational study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Exposure and protection protocols of dentomaxillofacial imaging applied by paediatric dentists in Europe.Oral radiology · 2024Article
- Accuracy and tracing time of cephalometric analyses on a tablet or desktop computer : A prospective study.Head & face medicine · 2024Article
- Are maxillary sinus variations related to maxillary sinus diameters?Oral radiology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Caries and Periapical Lesions on a Monitor with and without DICOM-GSDF Calibration Under Different Ambient Light Conditions.Journal of digital imaging · 2022Article
- Dental students' levels of understanding normal panoramic anatomy.Journal of dental sciences · 2018Article
- Digital dental radiology in Belgium: a nationwide survey.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2018Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study was performed to evaluate the reliability of the identification of anatomical landmarks in panoramic and lateral cephalometric radiographs on a standard medical grade picture archiving communication system (PACS) monitor and a tablet computer (iPad 5). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 1000 radiographs, including 500 panoramic and 500 lateral cephalometric radiographs, were retrieved from the de-identified dataset of the archive of the Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology of the University Of Connecticut School Of Dental Medicine. Major radiographic anatomical landmarks were independently reviewed by two examiners on both displays. The examiners initially reviewed ten panoramic and ten lateral cephalometric radiographs using each imaging system, in order to verify interoperator agreement in landmark identification. The images were scored on a four-point scale reflecting the diagnostic image quality and exposure level of the images.
resultsStatistical analysis showed no significant difference between the two displays regarding the visibility and clarity of the landmarks in either the panoramic or cephalometric radiographs.
conclusionTablet computers can reliably show anatomical landmarks in panoramic and lateral cephalometric radiographs.
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.