ArticleClinical oral investigations2019
The use of smartphones in radiographic diagnosis: accuracy on the detection of marginal gaps.
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 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic evaluation of the relationship between impacted mandibular third molars and the mandibular canal in panoramic radiographs shared via WhatsApp.Oral radiology · 2026Article
- The use of digital dental photography in an Eastern European country.Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2022Article
- Challenges for the dental radiology clinic in times of the COVID-19 pandemic.Oral radiology · 2020Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the accuracy of computer monitor and smartphone screen for radiographic diagnosis of marginal gap. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty teeth with mesial-occlusal-distal inlays (each tooth with a perfect fit and a 0.4-mm marginal gap restoration) were imaged with a phosphor plate system. Original digital radiographs were exported and analyzed with two different methods: computer monitor and smartphone screen; for the last method, images were shared with WhatsApp. Three examiners assessed all radiographs (n = 160) for the presence of marginal gap by using a dichotomous scale (yes/no). Diagnostic performance of each examiner and viewing method was evaluated by means of sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), and overall accuracy (Ac). Difference between the frequencies of gap detection of each method was analyzed using the McNemar test. Intra- and inter-examiner agreements were calculated using kappa statistics.
resultsIntra- and inter-examiner agreements were ≥ 0.80 for both methods. Similar diagnostic performance was found for computer monitor (Se = 0.87-1; Sp = 0.8-0.97; Ac = 0.84-0.99) and smartphone (Se = 0.77-1; Sp = 0.87-1; Ac = 0.88-0.95) viewing methods. No statistically significant differences in the frequency of gap detection were observed between the methods (P > 0.05).
conclusionDiagnostic accuracy of smartphone screens was similar to that of computer monitor for marginal gap detection. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Smartphones are becoming a common daily tool. In this sense, it might be an important new aid in Dentistry, including radiographic evaluation, which could benefit patients and dentists.
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.