Trial reportOral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology2021
A radiographic method for distinguishing noncavitated from cavitated proximal carious lesions: A proof of concept clinical trial.
Trial report in Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe propose a new topical radiographic contrast method for distinguishing noncavitated from cavitated radiolucencies. Laboratory tests and a pilot clinical trial were designed to test the feasibility and efficacy of the method. STUDY
designTwenty-two adults with 27 proximal radiolucencies had conventional bitewing (BW) examinations. After exclusion, 21 surfaces were evaluated. A concentrated solution of sodium iodide was placed in the interdental spaces via a microsyringe and BWs were again exposed. A class II cavity preparation was made in the adjacent tooth and polysiloxane impressions were made of the study surfaces. The impressions were scanned by visible light, creating a high resolution 3D replica. Cavitations, if present, were measured.
resultsNine surfaces were noncavitated and 12 surfaces were cavitated. The microsyringe dispensed a variable volume of liquid, which affected the accuracy of the test. The sensitivity for cavitation was 50%, specificity was 88.9%, and accuracy was 66.7%. This compares to a reported 60% sensitivity, 62% specificity, and 62% accuracy for BW examinations. Intraexaminer reliability for classifying noncavitated or cavitated lesions using the kappa test was 0.649.
conclusionsThis method needs improvement but was an advance over conventional BWs and could result in reduction of restorations in low- and high-risk patients.
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.