ArticleImaging science in dentistry2018
Accuracy of various imaging methods for detecting misfit at the tooth-restoration interface in posterior teeth.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe present study aimed to evaluate which of the following imaging methods best assessed misfit at the tooth-restoration interface: (1) bitewing radiographs, both conventional and digital, performed using a photostimulable phosphor plate (PSP) and a charge-coupled device (CCD) system; (2) panoramic radiographs, both conventional and digital; and (3) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND
methodsForty healthy human molars with class I cavities were selected and divided into 4 groups according to the restoration that was applied: composite resin, composite resin with liner material to simulate misfit, dental amalgam, and dental amalgam with liner material to simulate misfit. Radiography and tomography were performed using the various imaging methods, and the resulting images were analyzed by 2 calibrated radiologists. The true presence or absence of misfit corresponding to an area of radiolucency in regions subjacent to the esthetic and metal restorations was validated with microscopy. The data were analyzed using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and the scores were compared using the Cohen kappa coefficient.
resultsFor bitewing images, the digital systems (CCD and PSP) showed a higher area under the ROC curve (AUROC) for the evaluation of resin restorations, while the conventional images exhibited a larger AUROC for the evaluation of amalgam restorations. Conventional and digital panoramic radiographs did not yield good results for the evaluation of resin and amalgam restorations (
conclusionBitewing radiographs (conventional or digital) should be the method of choice when assessing dental restoration misfit.
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.