ArticleScientific reports2020
Comparison of Quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital (QLF-D) images and images of disclosed plaque for planimetric quantification of dental plaque in multibracket appliance patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- A prospective, triple-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating the protective effect of P11-4 peptide on enamel demineralization during multibracket orthodontic treatment.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Effect of a Plaque-Identifying Toothpaste on Plaque Amount in 12-16-Year-Olds With Fixed Orthodontic Appliances: A Randomised, Double-Blind, Controlled Clinical Trial.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2025Trial
- Planimetric quantification of plaque in patients with multibracket appliances using an intraoral scanner - proof-of-concept.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of the remineralisation potential of biomimetic agents on phosphorylated dentine using SEM-EDX analysis: an in vitro study.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Article
- Investigation of the inter-rater reliability of three different plaque indices used in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances.PloS one · 2025Article
- Level of Agreement Between Plaque Detection with Clinical Assessment and Assessment on Intraoral Scanner.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Comparison of the Short Time Effect of an Oral Hygiene Education in Four Sessions via Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence Technology Versus Disclosing Agents in Children: A Randomized, Crossover Clinical Trial.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Chlorhexidine versus organoselenium for inhibition of S. mutans biofilm, an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the present cross-sectional clinical study was to check the ability of plaque detection and quantification by QLF-D against conventional digital photographs of disclosed plaque in multibracket appliance (MB) patients. 20 patients were included according to the following criteria: (1) upper and lower jaw treated by MB appliance, (2) patients being 16 years of age or older, (3) all central and lateral incisors as well as canines in situ, (4) absence of developmental defects, carious lesions, surface fillings, prosthetic restorations or recessions greater than 1/3 of root length in central/lateral incisors and canines as well as (5) declaration of consent. QLF-D and conventional photographs were analyzed planimetrically regarding plaque coverage on buccal and oral surfaces of central/lateral incisors and canines. The conventional photographs of stained plaque served as gold standard. On average, in QLF-D pictures 20.7% ± 17.4 of the tooth surfaces were covered with plaque, while the conventional photographs of disclosed plaque presented a mean plaque-covered area of 36.2% ± 23.5. The Bland-Altman plot for both imaging modalities showed a very large inconsistent scattering with both negative and positive deviations. The method discrepancy increased with increasing plaque coverage, thus indicating a systematic method error. On average, the deviation of the methods from the optimal line of accordance was -15.5%. In patients wearing MB appliances, there was no clinical significant agreement regarding the plaque-covered tooth surface depicted by QLF-D respectively conventional images of disclosed plaque. Due to the large method discrepancy, QLF-D is currently not reliable for precise plaque quantification in MB patients.
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.