ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2024
The influence of different cheek and lip retractors and emissivity on intraoral infrared thermography.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2024. 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.
- Registration of thermal images of dead teeth to identify odontogenic infection foci.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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
objectivesTo assess the influence of two conventional and one adapted cheek and lip retractors and three emissivity setting values on intraoral infrared thermography (IT) temperature values.
methodsThe sample was composed by 50 volunteers. Three cheek and lip retractors were tested: Group 1-flex retractor (FR); Group 2-FR adapted with Styrofoam; Group 3-U-type retractor (UR) for cheek and lip. All thermograms were acquired using FLIR T650 infrared camera. A set of three thermograms in frontal norm were acquired for each lip and cheek retractor at 0.91, 0.96, and 0.98ε, with an interval of 15 min between each set of images to avoid thermal interference. All images were assessed by two observers. The ROIs' mean temperature of the four upper incisors was recorded. Two-way ANOVA and Sidak post-test were used for data assessment with a significance level of 5%.
resultsGroup 3 showed higher mean temperature than Groups 1 and 2 at all emissivity settings for all assessed teeth (P < .05). 0.91ε showed higher temperature than 0.96ε and 0.98ε for all assessed variables (P < .01). Contralateral teeth assessed using Group 3 at 0.91ε showed statistical differences between each other (P < .05). No statistical difference was observed between contralateral teeth assessed using Groups 1 and 2 at 0.96ε and 0.98ε (P > .05).
conclusionsThe choice of cheek and lip retractor and emissivity setting can interfere on intraoral IT temperature values. U-type cheek and lip retractor and 0.91ε setting should not be used for IT image acquisition when assessing dental tissues.
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.