ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2018
Impact of room lighting and image display device in the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatments.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidental findings from cone-beam computed tomography in children and adolescents: a systematic review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic evaluation of the relationship between impacted mandibular third molars and the mandibular canal in panoramic radiographs shared via WhatsApp.Oral radiology · 2026Article
- AI-Assisted Diagnostics in Dentistry: An Eye-Tracking Study on User Behavior.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Impact of viewing conditions on the performance assessment of different computer monitors used for dental diagnostics.Imaging science in dentistry · 2021Article
- Visual Illusions in Radiology: Untrue Perceptions in Medical Images and Their Implications for Diagnostic Accuracy.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Review
- The use of smartphones in radiographic diagnosis: accuracy on the detection of marginal gaps.Clinical oral investigations · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatment in different room lighting conditions and image display devices.
methodsAfter approval by Research Ethical Board, 20 images were obtained from blocks with one endodontically treated tooth. Of the 20 endodontic treatments conducted in the laboratory, of those the randomly selected 10 teeth (50% of sample) received some quality defect in three parameters-apical limit, adaptation to root canal and homogeneity of the root canal filling material. Digital radiographs (DIGORA® Optime, Soredex, Milwaukee, WI) were obtained, which were evaluated (8 times) by 10 observers in two different conditions of room lighting, with bright (1000 to 1200 lux) and dim light (25 to 50 lux), using two different image display devices, smartphones and laptop computers. The observers assessed the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatment with respect to quality of each one of three parameters individually. The data of observers' responses in terms of the quality of each parameter were statistically compared using Cronbach's α coefficient, diagnostic tests, π coefficient and ANOVA with Tukey tests, at a significant level setting of 5% (α = 0.05).
resultsThe mean of reliability of observer responses ranged from 0.89 (intra-evaluator) to 0.66 (inter-evaluator). The mean values of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area were 0.661 (PD = 0.098), with laptop in bright lighting appraising homogeneity of the root canal filling material on the worst performance (ROC area = 0.57), which was statistically significant (p < 0.05), and 0.81 with laptop in dim lighting appraising apical limit on the best performance. Differences (p < 0.05) occurred mainly among parameters used for assessment.
conclusionsRoom lighting and image display devices have very little influence in the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatment. Thus, we suggest the use of smartphones as an acceptable image display device in daily clinical practice in routine bright lighting conditions.
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.