ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2024
Evaluation of the effects of postprocessing settings in digital bitewing radiographs on proximal caries detection.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- EnamelNet-TRiX: A Lesion-Aware Dual-Transformer With Cross-Attention for Early and Advanced Enamel Caries Diagnosis.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the effects of postprocessing settings in digital bitewing radiographs on proximal caries detection.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2024Article
- Deep learning-based segmentation of caries, implants, fixed prosthesis, and restorations on bitewing radiographs: A retrospective study.Science progressArticle
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
Abstract
objectiveRadiographs are an integral part of detecting proximal caries. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of contrast, brightness, noise, sharpness, and γ adjustment of digital intraoral radiographs on the diagnosis of proximal caries. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this in vitro study, 40 extracted teeth including 20 premolars and 20 molars with enamel lesions (white spot or dentin discoloration seen through the enamel) were mounted together in groups of eight inside the skull. Bitewing radiographic images of each dental group were obtained by a photostimulable phosphor plate sensor with exposure conditions of 8 mA, 70 kV, and 0.2 s. The images were reconstructed by the built-in software and examined by two oral and maxillofacial radiologists in various settings of contrast, brightness, sharpness, noise, and γ. The teeth were then cut mesiodistally and the presence or absence of caries was confirmed by an oral and maxillofacial pathologist using a stereomicroscope. The data were then analyzed using the κ agreement coefficient, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (α = .05).
resultsAdjustment of brightness and contrast led to higher diagnostic performance with an accuracy of 82.5% and 83.8 (for observers 1 and 2, respectively) and 82.5% (for both observers), respectively. Noise adjustment was the least helpful approach for diagnosis of proximal dental caries among other adjustments, with an accuracy of 78.8% and 77.5% for observers 1 and 2, respectively.
conclusionBrightness and contrast setting was more efficient in improving the diagnostic potential of bitewing radiographs compared to other adjustments.
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.