ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2019
A comparison of diagnosis of early stage interproximal caries with bitewing radiographs and periapical images using consensus reference.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing diagnostic quality in dental bitewings using transformer and GAN-Based image restoration.Oral radiology · 2026Article
- Contemporary endodontic practices among endodontic specialists in Saudi Arabia: a comparative cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Intraoral vs. extraoral bitewing radiography for approximal caries detection: A multi-observer ex vivo ROC study using thin-section microscopy as gold standard.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Development and evaluation of a deep learning-based system for dental age estimation using the demirjian method on panoramic radiographs.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence Integrated with Intraoral Digital Imaging in Dental Caries Detection, Treatment Planning, and Clinical Decision-Making: A Scoping Review.F1000Research · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of CBCT vs Intraoral Radiography for Interproximal Caries Detection: A Prospective Diagnostic Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Eligibility of a novel BW + technology and comparison of sensitivity and specificity of different imaging methods for radiological caries detection.Oral radiology · 2024Article
- Determining the Ability of Senior Dental Students to Detect Interproximal Caries Using Different Radiographic Techniques.International journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a Decision Support System Developed with Deep Learning Approach for Detecting Dental Caries with Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Detecting Proximal Caries on Periapical Radiographs Using Convolutional Neural Networks with Different Training Strategies on Small Datasets.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Reproducibility and diagnostic value of a new wedge-guided bitewing image receptor-holding device.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2022Article
- Importance of bitewing radiographs for the early detection of interproximal carious lesions and the impact on healthcare expenditure in Japan.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluation of different teaching methods in the radiographic diagnosis of proximal carious lesions.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2021Article
- Effects of healthcare policy and education on reading accuracy of bitewing radiographs for interproximal caries.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic property of intraoral bitewing radiographs (BTW) for early stage interproximal caries, and to compare them with periapical radiographs (PA) at different levels of caries progression.
methods: A total of 241 interproximal surfaces of BTW and corresponding PAs were used. Seven teaching faculty consisting of three oral and maxillofacial radiologists, two operative faculty, and two prosthodontists evaluated the images. The observers graded images as either "intact", "enamel caries <1/2 width", "enamel caries >1/2 width", or "caries into dentin". The gold-standard was established by consensus of two experienced faculty with 35 years and 27 years of experience. Specificity, sensitivity, positive-predictive value, and negative-predictive value were calculated for the different level of caries progression. Furthermore, receiver operating curves) of BTW and PAs of each evaluator were made and the area under the curve of BTW and PAs were compared.
results: There was no significant difference in the specificity of BTW and PAs. BTW showed significantly higher sensitivity than PAs in all levels of caries progression (p<0.01). Positive-predictive value and negative-predictive value of BTWs were also significantly higher than PAs. One-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD test showed a significant difference in sensitivity with different levels of caries progression. The average area under the curve was significantly higher for BTWs than PAs (p<0.01).
conclusions: BTWs offer a significant advantage over PAs in the diagnoses of early stages of interproximal carious lesions.
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.