ArticleOral radiology2025
Influence of a handheld X-ray unit in the diagnosis of proximal caries lesions using different digital systems.
Article in Oral radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of image quality in conventional intraoral radiographs acquired with a stationary intraoral tomosynthesis system.Imaging science in dentistry · 2026Article
- Brightness and contrast adjustments influence proximal caries detection on handheld X-ray radiographs.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
- A comparative investigation of the quality of radiographs produced by portable handheld and fixed x-ray units.Brazilian dental journal · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the influence of a handheld X-ray unit in the diagnosis of proximal caries lesions using different digital systems by comparing with a wall-mounted unit.
methodsRadiographs of 40 human teeth were acquired using the Eagle X-ray handheld unit (Alliage, São Paulo, Brazil) set at 2.5 mA, 60 kVp and an exposure time of 0.45 s. Then, new radiographs of the teeth were acquired using the Focus X-ray wall-mounted unit (Instrumentarium, Tuusula, Finland) set at 7 mA, 60 kVp, and exposure time of 0.16 s. Three digital systems were used: a photostimulable phosphor plate receptor (Express system) and two complementary metal oxide semiconductor sensors (Digora Toto and SnapShot systems). Five oral and maxillofacial radiologists individually assessed the radiographs. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated from the responses of the examiners and compared using Analysis of Variance at a significance level of 5%. The weighted Kappa index evaluated the intra- and inter-examiner agreements for caries lesions diagnosis.
resultsThe handheld X-ray unit did not influence on the diagnostic metrics for the three digital systems used when compared with the wall-mounted unit (p > 0.05). The SnapShot showed higher AUC value than Digora Toto (p < 0.05). The mean values of intra- and inter-examiner agreements were 0.654 (substantial) and 0.365 (fair), respectively.
conclusionsThe diagnostic accuracy for detecting proximal caries lesions is not influenced by the use of a handheld X-ray unit, regardless of the digital system used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39836272What 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.