ArticleCureus2024
An In Vitro Validation of DIAGNOdent Versus Radiography for the Detection of Caries Underneath Different Types of Restorations.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to assess the validity of DIAGNOdent as a diagnostic device for the detection of secondary dental caries underneath different types of restorations. Methods A total of 60 extracted human permanent molars were used in this experimental study (30 sound teeth and 30 teeth with proximal caries); 20 teeth (10 sound and 10 carious) were randomly allocated into one of three restoration groups: composite, amalgam, or resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI). All teeth were examined using both KaVo DIAGNOdent Classic and digital radiographic sensors. Results In the composite-restored teeth, DIAGNOdent showed excellent sensitivity (90%) and specificity (90%). On the other hand, digital radiography had high sensitivity (80%) and poor specificity (20%). In amalgam-restored teeth, DIAGNOdent showed low sensitivity (30%) and excellent specificity (100%), while radiographs showed good sensitivity (70%) and low specificity (30%). In the RMGI-restored teeth, DIAGNOdent had excellent sensitivity (100%) and 70% specificity, while digital radiography had poor sensitivity (30%) and excellent specificity (90%). Conclusions DIAGNOdent showed superior results in detecting secondary caries lesions underneath composite and RMGI restorations when compared to digital radiography. On the other hand, radiography emerged as a preferable method for the detection of secondary caries underneath amalgam restorations. Based on our findings, DIAGNOdent can be used in dental clinics for the early diagnosis of hidden secondary caries underneath composite and RMGI restorations.
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.