ArticleOdontology2021
Digital photography vs. clinical assessment of resin composite restorations.
Article in Odontology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison between clinical and digital images with various resolutions to evaluate glass ionomer cement restoration on primary teeth.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Digital Shade Matching in Dentistry: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2023Review
- Smartphone Photography as a Teledentistry Method to Evaluate Anterior Composite Restorations.International journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Deterioration of anterior resin composite restorations in moderate to severe tooth wear patients: 3-year results.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the marginal adaptation and gingival status of full-crown restorations using an intraoral camera.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare direct clinical and indirect digital photographic assessment of resin composite restorations. Ninety-two posterior resin composite restorations were classified using World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria by two different clinical examiners (C1 and C2). In the same appointment of clinical assessment, intraoral high-quality digital photographs were taken and posteriorly two different digital examiners (D1 and D2) classified the images of each restoration. Restorations of each patient were assessed once by C1 and C2 independently. D1 and D2 assessed the digital images from different locations and in different time. Data were analyzed using the Cohen's kappa coefficient, Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test and Dunn's multiple shared test, with 95% confidence. Agreement levels varied from very good (0.81-1.00) to fair (0.21-0.40). Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between assessments were found for surface lustre, staining, color match and translucency, esthetic anatomical form, fracture of material and retention and marginal adaptation. The classification of the resin composite restorations varied significantly according to clinical or high-quality digital photographic assessments. Overall, clinical assessment detected more demand for repair or replacement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32274674What 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.