ArticleAnnals of African medicine
Assessment of common errors and subjective quality of digital panoramic radiographs in dental institution, Riyadh.
Article in Annals of African medicine. 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.
- Evaluation of Panoramic Acquisition Errors by Predoctoral Dental Students.Journal of dental education · 2026Article
- Assessment of artificial intelligence in detecting errors on panoramic radiographs.Imaging science in dentistry · 2026Article
- U-net-based segmentation of foreign bodies and ghost images in panoramic radiographs.Oral radiology · 2026Article
- Quantitative comparison of enamel-dentin and dentin-pulp distances between cone-beam computed tomography and histological sections: An ex vivo study.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- Reducing positioning errors in panoramic radiographs: Impact of an educational video on tongue positioning.Imaging science in dentistry · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The study aims to determine the frequency of positioning errors, record the number of diagnostically inappropriate images, and assess the quality of panoramic radiographs. Materials and Methods: In this study, a total of 2629 patients for whom orthopantomogram were selected out of 3900 new patients between August 2020 and June 2021. The positioning errors of the radiographs were evaluated and categorized into ten groups. The quality of the radiographs is further assessed as "Excellent," "Diagnostically Acceptable," and "Diagnostically Unacceptable." Results: Out of the total radiographs, 32.8% had no errors, and 77.2% of the radiographs had one or more positioning errors. The radiographs were analyzed in detail, and the errors found in the panoramic radiographs were recorded. The most common positioning error observed in the radiograph was error 8, failure to place the tongue close to the palate. Conclusion: The results and evaluation inferred that attention to patient positioning and focusing on reducing diagnostically indecent images could improve the quality of panoramic radiographs. Proper instructions to the patient, patient preparation, appropriate positioning of the patient, and the technician's skill plays a vital role in reducing diagnostic errors in Panoramic Radiography.
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.