ArticleBrazilian dental journal2024
Impact of using bitewing radiographs alone or in combination with clinical information on treatment decisions.
Article in Brazilian dental journal, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The combination of different methods has been advocated to increase sensitivity in detecting secondary caries lesions. This cross-sectional study compared the detection of caries lesions around posterior restorations and treatment decisions using bitewing radiographs alone or in combination with clinical information from patient records. The radiographs (n = 212) were randomly distributed into two sequences for assessment across two phases, with a wash-out period of two weeks. In the first phase (X-ray group), the radiographic images were evaluated without clinical information; in the second phase (X-ray/CARS group), the radiographic images were assessed in conjunction with the CARS score (Caries Associated with Restorations or Sealants) and lesion activity. A radiographic classification system for carious lesions around restorations was adapted to classify the bitewing radiographs included in this study. Evaluations were conducted in consensus by a panel of specialists, focusing on the detection of caries around restorations and subsequent treatment decisions. A chi-squared test was used to compare treatment decisions between the groups, and Cohen's kappa coefficient was employed to assess the agreement of scores. The results showed a significant difference in the distribution of decisions regarding the need for restorative intervention between the groups (p < 0.001), with the X-ray/CARS group leading to more decisions favoring restorative intervention. There was a moderate to good agreement of scores (κ = 0.749). The combination of clinical and radiographic information was found to influence the treatment decision-making process by increasing the likelihood of opting for restorative intervention.
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.