ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2018
Spatial agreement of demineralized areas in quantitative light-induced fluorescence images and digital photographs.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosis of cracked tooth: Clinical status and research progress.The Japanese dental science review · 2022Review
- Antibacterial and white spot lesions preventive effect of an orthodontic resin modified with silver-nanoparticles.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2021Article
- A real-time interactive restoration system for intraoral digital videos using segment anything model.Digital healthArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPrevious work has shown qualitatively that detection of demineralized tooth areas (white spot lesions, WSLs) is more reliable in digital photographs (DP) as in quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) images. Based on non-rigid, multimodal image registration, we now quantitatively compare manual and automatic markings in both modalities.
methodsAfter braces removal, pairs of DP and QLF were acquired from 124 teeth of 31 patients. Three experienced raters marked the WSL on both DP and QLF images, each of which was presented twice in randomized order. For each tooth and each modality, a ground truth (GT) was established using the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation algorithm on the total of six manual markings per image. DP and QLF image pairs were spatially registered, by aligning the outline of the tooth area in DPs to that of the corresponding tooth area in QLF. Between all pairs of markings for all teeth, position and size were compared quantitatively by the Dice coefficient and the novel coefficient of inclusion.
resultsOur hypotheses: (i) the clinical inspection supported by DP is more sensitive to WSL as that by QLF, disregarding whether the automatic analysis or the experts' manual assessment of QLF is applied, and (ii) detected lesions in QLF are included in those of DP, were confirmed and not confirmed, respectively.
conclusionDP and QLF are valuable methods to detect WSL in demineralized teeth. Combining both modalities can provide additional information on early lesion assessment.
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.