ArticleBMC oral health2024
Comparative evaluation and patient satisfaction with an electrical impedance-based device versus digital radiography in the estimation of remaining dentin thickness in carious posterior permanent teeth: (Diagnostic accuracy study).
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06780527 (Clinical Performance and Radiographic Assessment of Resin Composite Restoration After Dentin Biomodification by Grape Seed Extract in Vital Teeth With Deep Occlusal Carious Lesions. "18-M Randomized Clinical Trial"), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Clinical Performance and Radiographic Assessment of Resin Composite Restoration After Dentin Biomodification by Grape Seed Extract in Vital Teeth With Deep Occlusal Carious Lesions. "18-M Randomized Clinical Trial"
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fracture Resistance of CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate and 3D-Printed Resin Crowns with Varying Occlusal Thickness: An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Patient Satisfaction with Anterior Bite Turbos: A Prospective Clinical Trial.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate assessment of remaining dentin thickness (RDT) is paramount for restorative decisions and treatment planning of vital teeth to avoid any pulpal injury. This diagnostic accuracy study compared the validity and patient satisfaction of an electrical impedance based device Prepometer™ (Hager & Werken, Duisburg, Germany) versus intraoral digital radiography for the estimation of remaining dentin thickness in carious posterior permanent teeth.
methodsSeventy patients aged 12-25 years with carious occlusal or proximal permanent vital posterior teeth were recruited. Tooth preparation was performed to receive an adhesive restoration. Pre- and post-excavation RDT were measured radiographically by two calibrated raters using the paralleling periapical technique. Prepometer™ measurements were performed by the operator. Patients rated their satisfaction level with each tool on a 4-point Likert scale and 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). Inter and intragroup comparisons were analyzed using signed rank test, while agreement between devices and observations was tested using weight kappa (WK) coefficient.
resultsthe intergroup comparisons showed that, before and after excavation, there was a significant difference between measurements made by both techniques (p < 0.001). After excavation, there was a weak agreement between measurements (WK = 0.2, p < 0.001), whereas before excavation, the agreement was not statistically significant (p = 0.407). Patients were significantly more satisfied with Prepometer™ based on scales and VAS (p < 0.001).
conclusionPrepometer™ could be a viable clinical tool for determining RDT with high patient satisfaction, while radiographs tended to overestimate RDT in relation to the Prepometer™.
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.