ArticleBDJ open2021
Comparison of a full arch digital photographic assessment of caries prevalence in 5-year-old children to an established visual assessment method: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BDJ open, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral health status and associated factors among rural older adults in China using a 3D intraoral scanner: a population-based cross-sectional study in four provinces.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Legal issues in digital oral health: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Predictors of Developmental Defects of Enamel in Primary Maxillary Central Incisors Using Bayesian Model Selection.Caries research · 2024Article
- Assessing Fluorosis Incidence in Areas with Low Fluoride Content in the Drinking Water, Fluorotic Enamel Architecture, and Composition Alterations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- BDJ Open 2021 - our most successful year to date.British dental journal · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDigital epidemiology in dental disease screening has a number of advantages which warrant further exploration.
aimThis study aimed to test the examination accuracy of digital images to evaluate child oral health by comparing the new method to a gold standard method. It also investigated the levels of diagnostic accuracy between different examiners, including dental care professionals and a lay examiner, when quantifying dental disease using images.
methodsA calibrated dental examiner inspected forty 5-year-olds. In addition, three sets of digital images were taken per child. These images were assessed by six examiners. Sensitivity and specificity of caries diagnosis and inter-examiner reliability were calculated to compare the caries scores derived from examination of the images to those of the gold standard examinations.
resultsThe mean values for sensitivity and specificity scores were 48.0% and 99.1%, respectively. The mean value for kappa showed moderate agreement between 0.43 and 0.73 (0.57). Mean values for agreement using intra-class coefficients were excellent (0.78) and good (0.73) for dt and dmft, respectively. No statistical difference in the validity of the caries scores was shown between the different image assessors.
conclusionsThese data demonstrate the feasibility of using digital images to screen child oral health and for nondental professionals to be recruited to carry out digital epidemiology for the oral health surveillance of children.
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.