ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2024
A comparison between clinical and digital images with various resolutions to evaluate glass ionomer cement restoration on primary teeth.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Dental photography has increasingly been used in practice. One of the purposes of dental photography is for treatment evaluation. Notably, photo resolution affects a picture's quality. Glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations are frequently used on pediatric teeth and must be evaluated periodically. In this digital era, digital photos can be used to evaluate restorations. The evaluation of restorations using FDI criteria is typically effective in clinical uses. Objective: This study aims to compare differences in digital photo resolution and clinical results to evaluate GIC restoration in primary teeth. Materials and methods: Forty mandibular primary first molars from 31 pediatric patients aged 4 to 9 years from Universitas Indonesia dental hospital were included in this study. All teeth were examined and clinically evaluated, and photos were taken using a DSLR camera with low resolution (8 MP), medium resolution (15 MP), and high resolution (32 MP). The photos were then evaluated. Clinical GIC restorations and digital photographs were evaluated using FDI criteria. All of the collected data were analyzed using a Pearson's chi-square categorical comparative test with a significance level of p < 0.05. Result: Based on the comparative test, there were no statistically significant differences in the clinical groups with low resolution, medium resolution, and high resolution for evaluating GIC restorations in primary teeth. Conclusion: Digital photography can be used to support the evaluation of restoration status. Digital photos can indicate the clinical state of GIC restorations. This study recommends using digital photos between low and medium resolution (8-15.3 MP) as media in dental practices to evaluate GIC restorations in primary teeth, comparable to smartphone cameras or pocket cameras.
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.