ArticleImaging science in dentistry2024
Positioning and preparation errors impacting dental panoramic radiographs in patients with mixed dentition.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards accurate occlusal plane positioning in panoramic radiographs: a deep learning-assisted study.Oral radiology · 2026Article
- Reducing positioning errors in panoramic radiographs: Impact of an educational video on tongue positioning.Imaging science in dentistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the quality of clinically indicated digital dental panoramic radiographs (DPRs) of children with mixed dentition. Despite the likely widespread use of this modality, recent research detailing errors on DPRs is scarce. Materials and Methods: A consecutive case series was performed, including 178 DPRs from patients aged 6 to 12 years. Each DPR was reviewed for 10 distinct errors. The findings were analyzed to identify potential solutions. Results: Nearly three-quarters of the DPRs contained multiple errors. Linear regression analysis indicated that the number of errors decreased with increasing patient age; however, this trend was not statistically significant. Notably, 3 groups of errors (2 errors each) frequently appeared together on the same DPR. When similar errors were grouped, the error incidence decreased significantly with age. Both leftward head tilting and rightward head rotation were observed, likely attributable to the design of the DPR room and the door location. The inter-rater and intra-rater reliability agreements were deemed "substantial" or "almost perfect, beyond chance" for the detection of most errors, particularly the most frequent types, which involved the "chin," "tongue," and "lips-open" positions. Conclusion: As a pediatric patient ages, the number of DPR errors decreases. The results suggest several pre-exposure strategies that could reduce the error rate. These include, monitoring for a "lips-open" position as an indicator of a potential "tongue" error (occluding the palate-glossal space), and implementing dry runs. Asymmetries observed on DPR must be documented and should prompt re-examination, as they may be genuine.
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.