Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39286578›Full record

ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2024

Comparing the reliability of inter- and intra-grader using digital scanning vs. traditional visual method for evaluating preclinical class II composite preparation.

Amr Ahmed Azhari, Walaa Magdy Ahmed, Raghad Almaghrabi, Aroob Almalki, Yasser Merdad, Hind J Alrefai, Mawadah T Bahrawi, Lama Faisal Kordi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Amr Ahmed AzhariDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Walaa Magdy AhmedDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Raghad AlmaghrabiInternship Program, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Aroob AlmalkiInternship Program, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Yasser MerdadDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Hind J AlrefaiDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, University Dental Hospital, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Mawadah T BahrawiDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, University Dental Hospital, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Lama Faisal KordiDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, University Dental Hospital, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the intra- and inter-grader reliability of four evaluators using three different digital intraoral scanners and visual methods for typodontic Class II composite preparations. Materials and methods: Ninety-five typodont teeth of Class II composite preparations were evaluated using traditional visual grading methods (VGM) and digital grading methods (DGM) using the same rubric. Three intraoral scanners were used to scan the Class II cavity preparation for the composite: i700 (Medit, Korea), Trios 4 (3Shape, Denmark), and Shinning 3D (Shinning 3D, China). The same rubric was used to score the visual and digital evaluations by calibrated examiners. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare method- and evaluator-based scores, accounting for the scanner type used. Results: The scores of the prepped typodont teeth were subjected to an interaction between the examiner and the evaluation technique. In addition, the mean total prepped teeth scores differed between examiners using VGM. A statistically significant interaction emerged between examiners and the evaluation technique employed to assess the total score of the prepped teeth: Conclusion: Examiners and evaluation methods affect student performance in Class II cavity preparations. The DGM may be more reliable and consistent within and between evaluators than the VGM is.

Indexed as

Class II preparationsDigital grading methodsIntra-grader reliabilityIntraoral scannersVisual grading methods

Identifiers

PMID39286578
PMCPMC11402004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.