ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2020
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of Oral Cavity Sensors: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Pooled it
- Caries-preventing effect of a hydroxyapatite-toothpaste in adults: a 18-month double-blinded randomized clinical trial.Frontiers in public health · 2023Trial
- An in vitro comparison of different caries-detection methods in primary-molars.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Efficiency of Near-Infrared Technology in the Clinical Detection of Carious Lesions: A Systematic Review.European journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Effect of resin composite shade on digital fiber-optic transillumination imaging in vitro.Odontology · 2023Article
- Use of Digital Diagnostic Aids for Initial Caries Detection: A Review.Dentistry journal · 2023Review
- Emerging Technologies for Dentin Caries Detection-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Clinical Analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy and Time of Execution of a Transillumination Caries Detection Method Compared to Bitewing Radiographs.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this
methodsA total of 974 proximal surface of permanent posterior teeth from 34 patients (19 females and 15 males between the ages of 22-55) were evaluated in the present study. After clinical examination of each proximal surface by an experienced examiner, they were coded according to the ICDAS criteria and subsequently with BW, the NILTI, LED, and LFpen. The proximal dentin caries of 106 were opened based on the combination of visual, NILTI and radiographic assessment and validated; and were treated with restorative materials. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and calculation of the sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve (AUC).
resultsThe highest sensitivity values were recorded from NILTI readings (99.1%), followed by BW scores (86.8%). The highest specificity values were recorded from ICDAS (100%). The best AUC values were found from the NILTI readings (0.97), followed by BW (0.93) and ICDAS (0.87).
conclusionThe NILTI device exhibited the best performance in terms of detecting proximal dentin caries.
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.