ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2021
Effects of healthcare policy and education on reading accuracy of bitewing radiographs for interproximal caries.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Training Dental Students to Use an Artificial Intelligence-Based Platform for Pulp Exposure Prediction Prior to Deep Caries Excavation: A Proof-of-Concept Randomised Controlled Trial.International endodontic journal · 2026Trial
- Enhancing diagnostic quality in dental bitewings using transformer and GAN-Based image restoration.Oral radiology · 2026Article
- Performance evaluation of AI-based caries detection technology and its educational training module: a dual-phase investigation.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Article
- Management of a clinical case of caries lesions by undergraduate dentistry students.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Importance of bitewing radiographs for the early detection of interproximal carious lesions and the impact on healthcare expenditure in Japan.Annals of translational medicine · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study is to assess the accuracy of bitewing radiograph interpretation of predoctoral students, residents and general dentists who work under different core curriculum of dental education and healthcare policy.
methodsA total of 118 examiners including predoctoral dental students, residents and general dentists from USA and Japan were tasked with evaluating a series of bitewing radiographs and diagnosing interproximal carious lesions. This study was approved by the Harvard Medical School Institutional Review Board (IRB). Participants graded interproximal aspects of those images and categorized the following criteria; "intact", "enamel caries <1/2 width", "enamel caries >1/2 width" or "caries into dentin". The gold-standard was determined by the consensus of two HSDM full-time faculty.
resultsThere was significant difference in the sensitivity for all three caries levels between the two groups but there was no significant difference on specificity. The positive-predictive and negative-predictive values of the USA group for the enamel caries (<1/2 of enamel) were significantly higher than the Japanese group. The average of AUC (ROC) was significantly higher in the USA group (0.885 ± 0.04) than the Japanese group (0.785 ± 0.08, p<0.01).
conclusionTeaching and adopting BW radiographs for diagnosis of interproximal caries is integral for dental providers to accurately and efficiently use them in their practices. It is critical that all dental educators approach policymakers to explain the importance of BW radiographs and promote their efficacy for prevention and early diagnosis of interproximal 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.