ArticleCureus2024
Quality Assessment of Periapical Radiographs Taken by Dental Assistants Using the Recent Faculty of General Dental Practice (FGDP) Guidelines.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determination of optimal horizontal beam angulations for canal separation in mandibular molars using cone-beam computed tomography: a retrospective image-based analysis.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2026Article
- A framework to support dental radiography as part of diagnostic radiography practice.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2026Article
- Ideal Horizontal X-Ray Beam Angulation for Maxillary Molars. A Retrospective Clinical Study Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography.Australian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc · 2025Article
- Enhancing intraoral radiographic technique: introducing "Nallan's Lines".Frontiers in oral health · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriapical radiographs play a pivotal role in dentistry, offering invaluable insights essential for various dental procedures.
objectiveThis study aims to systematically assess the quality of intraoral periapical (IOPA) radiographs evaluating adherence to the recent guidelines established by the Faculty of General Dental Practice (FGDP).
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at the University College of Dentistry (UCD), employing a non-probability consecutive sampling technique to acquire a calculated sample of 300 IOPA radiographs from the operative, oral surgery, and oral radiology departments. Two senior faculty members evaluated the radiographs according to the recent two-tier grading system outlined in the FGDP guidelines.
resultsThe study revealed that 197 (65.67%) of the assessed radiographs were diagnostically acceptable, while 103 (34.33%) were deemed diagnostically unacceptable. Contrast problems emerged as the most prevalent issue, accounting for 85 (28.3%) of the cases. Other common problems included incorrect film positioning in 66 (22%), incorrect vertical cone angulation in 37 (12.3%), incorrect horizontal cone angulation in 11 (3.7%), and incorrect processing in 15 (5%) of the IOPA radiographs.
conclusionThis study revealed that approximately two-thirds of the IOPA radiographs were deemed diagnostically acceptable. However, contrast issues emerged as the predominant concern affecting image quality. These findings highlight the critical importance of continuous quality improvement initiatives in radiographic practices to enhance diagnostic precision and ensure optimal patient care.
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.