ArticleClinical oral investigations2021
Influence of the image file format of digital periapical radiographs on the diagnosis of external and internal root resorptions.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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.
- Diagnostic evaluation of the relationship between impacted mandibular third molars and the mandibular canal in panoramic radiographs shared via WhatsApp.Oral radiology · 2026Article
- Influence of blue-light blocking filter on a series of diagnostic tasks in digital radiographs.Oral radiology · 2026Article
- Influence of the digital file format on radiographic diagnostic in dentistry: a scoping review.Brazilian oral research · 2024Article
- Digital file format does not influence the radiographic diagnosis of vertical root fracture.Oral radiology · 2022Article
- DICOM file format has better radiographic image quality than other file formats: an objective study.Brazilian dental journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the influence of different image file formats of digital radiographic images on the diagnosis of external (ERR) and internal root resorption (IRR). MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-four human teeth were selected. For ERR, 20 teeth were used (10 control and 10 with simulated ERR), and for IRR, 14 teeth were used (before and after IRR simulation). Digital periapical radiographs were acquired using the Digora Toto system and exported in four different image file formats: TIFF, BMP, PNG, and JPEG, totaling 192 radiographs. Five examiners evaluated the images using the JPEGView software and scored the detection of ERR or IRR on a 5-point scale. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and the area under the ROC curve were obtained for the diagnosis of ERR and IRR in the different image file formats. Two-way ANOVA compared the diagnostic values between the file formats and the Kappa test assessed intra- and inter-examiner agreement. The significance level was set at 5% (α = 0.05).
resultsThe mean values of intra-examiner agreement were substantial (0.740) for ERR and almost perfect (0.836) for IRR and, inter-examiner was fair (0.263) and moderate (0.421), respectively. No statistically significant differences were found among the different file formats for the diagnostic values of ERR and IRR.
conclusionThe file format of digital radiographs does not influence the diagnosis of ERR and IRR. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Digital radiographic images may be susceptible to computational factors; however, they can be stored in multiple file formats without affecting the diagnosis of dental root resorptions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33495894What 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.