ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2021
In vitro comparison of two types of digital X-ray sensors for proximal caries detection validated by micro-computed tomography.
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 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimization of Er: YAG pulse duration and repetition rate for efficient, dentin‑preserving caries removal.Lasers in medical science · 2026Article
- Short-Wave Infrared Reflectance at 1050-1550 nm for Proximal Caries Detection: An In Vitro Diagnostic Accuracy Study Validated by Micro-CT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Performance of a novel direct-conversion intraoral sensor on the assessment of caries-like lesions - an ex-vivo comparison with conventional (scintillator-dependent) intraoral sensors.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Near-infrared light reflection for the early detection of proximal caries in posterior teeth: an in vivo study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence-assisted caries detection: a clinical evaluation.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Proximal Caries Detection Using Short-Wave Infrared Transillumination at Wavelengths of 1050, 1200 and 1300 nm in Permanent Posterior Human Teeth.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Diagnostic validity of early proximal caries detection using near-infrared imaging technology on 3D range data of posterior teeth.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Article
- Near-infrared reflection at 780 nm for detection of early proximal caries in posterior permanent teeth in vitro.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of two intraoral digital X-ray sensors-the charged-coupled device (CCD) and complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS)-for proximal caries detection in permanent molar and premolar teeth. Micro-CT served as the reference standard.
methods250 samples were mounted in three-dimensional (3D)-printed phantoms, and their proximal surfaces were evaluated by ICDAS criteria directly to create a balanced sample. Bitewing radiography was conducted using 3D-constructed X-ray phantoms with a CCD sensor at a 0.08 s and a CMOS sensor at 0.12 and 0.16 s exposure time. Two examiners determined the diagnostic decisions twice at appropriate intervals. Three diagnostic thresholds for sound surfaces and enamel and dentin caries were defined and presented in a cross-table. Sensitivity and specificity values and overall accuracy were calculated, and receiver operating curves were generated and compared. Reliability assessment was performed using linear weighted κ statistics.
resultsThe overall accuracies between the reference standard and different sensors and exposure times were 63.1% (CCD), 67.1% (CMOS sensor at 0.12 s) and 70.7% (CMOS sensor at 0.08 s). High specificity but low sensitivity values were found for all examination conditions at all thresholds. The area under the curve comparison values revealed no significant difference between sensor types and exposure times. Linear-weighted κ analysis revealed almost perfect agreement for all assessments.
conclusionNo significant difference was found for diagnostic performance of proximal caries detection between the different sensors and exposure times. The increased exposure time did not lead to a significant diagnostic benefit.
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.