Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30302610›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2019

Comparing the outcomes of gold-standard dental examinations with photographic screening by mid-level dental providers.

Joon Soo Park, Estie Kruger, Wendy Nicholls, Mohamed Estai, John Winters, Marc Tennant

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joon Soo ParkPaediatric Oral Health Research Group, UWA Dental School, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. alex.park@uwa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2052-558X
Estie KrugerInternational Research Collaborative - Oral Health and Equity, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.
Wendy NichollsDental Department, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Subiaco, Australia.
Mohamed EstaiInternational Research Collaborative - Oral Health and Equity, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.
John WintersDental Department, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Subiaco, Australia.
Marc TennantInternational Research Collaborative - Oral Health and Equity, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.
The University of Western Australia · AUPrincess Margaret Hospital for Children · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the detectability of the intra-oral photographic method in comparison to the baseline, comprehensive dental examination (CDE), in children when performed by different levels of dental practitioners. MATERIALS AND

methodsAs part of a quality assurance program, intra-oral photographs were obtained from 77 patients (2-18 years) as part of a CDE before undertaking dental treatment under general anaesthesia. A DSLR camera was utilised to acquire images which were subsequently uploaded to a cloud-based server. The baseline for each participant was established during the CDE, utilising both visual and radiographic examination, which was then compared to the assessment made by a mid-level dental practitioners (MLDP). The evaluation was based on utilising an odontogram where the teeth were charted either as decayed or filled.

resultsSpecificity (95%) was higher than sensitivity (61.5%) when comparing the photographic assessment with the benchmark CDE assessment. The inter-rater reliability between the two methods of assessment was substantial, with a kappa score of 0.62. The photographic assessment method underestimated the decayed and filled teeth, as observed by the caries experience (dft/DFT scores) (CDE = 7.01 vs. photographic assessment = 5.22). There were lower levels of diagnostic detection in the posterior teeth as compared to the anterior teeth assessments.

conclusionsAlthough the CDE is still considered to be the gold-standard, this study found that the photographic caries assessment by MLDP produced an acceptable diagnostic level of detection particularly for the anterior teeth. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The photographic method could offer a potential cost-saving and user-friendly screening.

Indexed as

AdolescentBenchmarkingChildChild, PreschoolDental CariesDiagnosis, OralHumansPhotography, DentalPhysical ExaminationReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityTelemedicineCariesDental screeningPaediatric oral healthPhotographRadiography

Identifiers

PMID30302610
OpenAlexW2896587038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.