Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32161288›Full record

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.

Katharina Klaus, Tabea Glanz, Alexander Georg Glanz, Carolina Ganss, Sabine Ruf

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Katharina KlausDepartment of Orthodontics, Justus-Liebig-University Gießen, Germany (Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Gießen, Germany. katharina.klaus@dentist.med.uni-giessen.de.
Tabea GlanzPrivate Practice, Lüdenscheid, Germany (Dr. Arndt Himmen, Freiherr-vom-Stein-Str. 24, 58511, Lüdenscheid, Germany.
Alexander Georg GlanzPrivate Orthodontic Practice, Zweibrücken, Germany (Dr. Michael Wagner, Poststr. 5, 66482, Zweibrücken, Germany.
Carolina GanssDepartment of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Justus-Liebig-University Gießen, Germany (Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Gießen, Germany.
Sabine RufDepartment of Orthodontics, Justus-Liebig-University Gießen, Germany (Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Gießen, Germany.
Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen · DEKunststoff-Institut Lüdenscheid · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Optical ImagingOrthodontic BracketsQuantitative Light-Induced FluorescenceAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDental PlaqueFemaleHumansMaleObserver VariationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32161288
PMCPMC7066241
OpenAlexW3012523127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.