Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29279822›Full record

ArticleImaging science in dentistry2017

Repeat analysis of intraoral digital imaging performed by undergraduate students using a complementary metal oxide semiconductor sensor: An institutional case study.

Mohd Yusmiaidil Putera Mohd Yusof, Nur Liyana Abdul Rahman, Amiza Aqiela Ahmad Asri, Noor Ilyani Othman, Ilham Wan Mokhtar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effect of Centring Rings on Number of Retakes and Cone Cuts in Intraoral Imaging Performed by Dental Students: A Randomized Case-Control Study.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Reject Rates of Radiographic Images in Dentomaxillofacial Radiology: A Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mohd Yusmiaidil Putera Mohd YusofCenter of Oral Maxillofacial Diagnostic and Medicine Studies, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus, Selangor, Malaysia.
Nur Liyana Abdul RahmanCenter of Oral Maxillofacial Diagnostic and Medicine Studies, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus, Selangor, Malaysia.
Amiza Aqiela Ahmad AsriCenter of Oral Maxillofacial Diagnostic and Medicine Studies, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus, Selangor, Malaysia.
Noor Ilyani OthmanCenter of Comprehensive Care Studies, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus, Selangor, Malaysia.
Ilham Wan MokhtarCenter of Comprehensive Care Studies, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus, Selangor, Malaysia.
Hospital Sungai Buloh · MYUniversiti Teknologi MARA · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study was performed to quantify the repeat rate of imaging acquisitions based on different clinical examinations, and to assess the prevalence of error types in intraoral bitewing and periapical imaging using a digital complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) intraoral sensor. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 8,030 intraoral images were retrospectively collected from 3 groups of undergraduate clinical dental students. The type of examination, stage of the procedure, and reasons for repetition were analysed and recorded. The repeat rate was calculated as the total number of repeated images divided by the total number of examinations. The weighted Cohen's kappa for inter- and intra-observer agreement was used after calibration and prior to image analysis.

resultsThe overall repeat rate on intraoral periapical images was 34.4%. A total of 1,978 repeated periapical images were from endodontic assessment, which included working length estimation (WLE), trial gutta-percha (tGP), obturation, and removal of gutta-percha (rGP). In the endodontic imaging, the highest repeat rate was from WLE (51.9%) followed by tGP (48.5%), obturation (42.2%), and rGP (35.6%). In bitewing images, the repeat rate was 15.1% and poor angulation was identified as the most common cause of error. A substantial level of intra- and interobserver agreement was achieved.

conclusionThe repeat rates in this study were relatively high, especially for certain clinical procedures, warranting training in optimization techniques and radiation protection. Repeat analysis should be performed from time to time to enhance quality assurance and hence deliver high-quality health services to patients.

Indexed as

Radiographic Image EnhancementRadiography, Dental, Digital

Identifiers

PMID29279822
PMCPMC5738505
OpenAlexW2776228959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.