ArticleJournal of dental sciences2018
Dental students' levels of understanding normal panoramic anatomy.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of ChatGPT-assisted and drawing-based learning in enhancing understanding of intraoral radiographic anatomy among dental students: a comparative study.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Does a mobile interactive web application improve dental students' panoramic radiograph interpretation skills? A pre-post educational study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- A mouse-tracking study on visualization of panoramic radiographs among Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology faculty.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2026Article
- Assessing dental students' knowledge of panoramic radiographs and the importance of normal anatomy education.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Screening ability of dental students to detect osteoporosis on dental panoramic radiographs.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2024Article
- Visual Analysis of Panoramic Radiographs among Pediatric Dental Residents Using Eye-Tracking Technology: A Cross-Sectional Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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
background/purposeIn dentistry, panoramic radiography is an important examination technique. The Faculty of Dentistry at Tokushima University educates students about panoramic radiographic anatomical landmarks. The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in the understanding of each panoramic anatomical landmark among students. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study analyzed the results of 40 fifth- and 79 sixth-year faculty students who had taken a written examination to clarify their knowledge of anatomical landmarks in 28 panoramic radiographic regions. Anatomical landmarks were classified into 3 categories: <bone structure>, <soft tissue/air layer>, and <ghost images > to compare correct answer rates.
resultsThe mean overall correct answer rate by the 119 students for the 28 regions was 53%. The rate did not vary between the 2 academic years. On comparison of the 3 categories, significant differences were only observed between <bone structure> and <soft tissue/air layer>, as the values for the latter were lower. Among the anatomical landmarks, the rates for the condylar head, hyoid bone, panoramic innominate line, styloid process, and nasopalatine line were higher, and those for ghost images of the contralateral nasopalatine line, the cervical vertebrae, mandibular foramen, mastoid air cell, and posterior pharyngeal wall were lower. The values for <soft tissue/air layer>, such as the dorsum of tongue, middle and inferior nasal conche, and middle and inferior nasal meatuses, were also lower.
conclusionThese results indicate the necessity of improving educational approaches for regions with lower rates of correct answers.
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.