ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2022
Reproducibility and diagnostic value of a new wedge-guided bitewing image receptor-holding device.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combined Effect of Abutment Height and Restoration Emergence Angle on Peri-Implant Bone Loss Progression: A Retrospective Analysis.Clinical oral implants research · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the reproducibility of a wedge-guided bitewing image receptor-holding device (IRHD-WG) compared to a commercially available bitewing image receptor-holding device (IRHD-XCP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten operators randomly acquired bitewing radiographs of four posterior regions (Premolar, Molar 1, Molar 2, Molar 3) distributed in two dry bone skulls and mandibles using 2 IRHDs (IRHD-WG and IRHD-XCP). The radiographs corresponding to the same region and IRHD but acquired by different operators were paired for reproducibility comparison. A total of 360 pairs of radiographs were randomized for analysis. Objective analysis consisted of extracting the pixel values from each radiograph and comparing the values between each pair by intraclass correlation coefficient. For subjective analysis, the IRHDs images were digitally removed. Five oral radiologists blinded for the study conditions classified the radiograph pairs according to their similarity and diagnostic value. The answers' relative frequencies were compared by the chi-square test (α = 0.05).
resultsThe IRHD-WG presented a higher reproducibility (Mean = 0.850; SD = 0.144) than the IRHD-XCP (Mean = 0.615; SD = 0.287) in the objective analysis. Radiographs acquired with the IRHD-WG were more similar than those acquired with the IRHD-XCP (
conclusionFor the objective and subjective analyses of reproducibility, the IRHD-WG performed better than the commercial IRHD-XCP.
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.