ArticleDigital health
Comparison between clinical and computerized methods for assessing gingival pigmentation.
Article in Digital health. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Digital computerized assessment can provide objective values for the measurement of gingival pigmentation. This study aims to compare the Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage Lab color space (CIELAB) values and the computerized intensity values (CIVs) from digital imaging with clinical evaluations using the Dummett-Gupta Oral Pigmentation Index (DOPI) for assessing gingival pigmentation in a multi-ethnic population. Methodology: Digital photographs of 188 participants were taken using standardized parameters. The buccal gingival pigmentation was evaluated using three methods (a) a clinical evaluation by two independent assessors using the DOPI, (b) the CIELAB values using the Adobe Photoshop® software (Version 23.1.1) and (c) the CIV calculated using the ImageJ software (Version 1.53k). A hierarchical clustering analysis was used to identify colour groups that clustered together. Agreement between the clinical and digital categorization of the pigmentation was carried out using weighted kappa analysis. Agreements between CIELAB and CIV were compared using intra-class correlation coefficient. Results: There was a statistically significant difference in the DOPI, the L*, a*, and b* coordinates, and the CIV between the different ethnic groups of the participants. Cluster analysis for the CIELAB and CIV both identified four clusters. The gingival pigmentation categorization using the L*, a*, and b* values moderately agreed with the clinical evaluation using the DOPI index while the categorization with the CIV was in slight agreement with the clinical evaluations. Conclusion: This study identified four clusters of gingival pigmentation in 188 multi-ethnic participants. The clusters, determined by CIELAB values, align with the clinical assessment of gingival pigmentation. Digital measurements derived from clinical photographs can serve as an effective means of pigmentation measurement in dental clinics.
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.