ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2025
Assessment of radiographic errors and repetition rates in undergraduate endodontic education: a retrospective clinical study.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Nallan's Direct Ray: An Innovative Gyroscopic-Guided Radiographic Device for Intraoral Radiography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study conducted to assess the frequency of radiographic retakes during endodontic procedures among undergraduate dental students and to identify common imaging errors, intending to propose strategies to increase radiographic accuracy and minimize unnecessary exposure. A retrospective analysis conducted using data from 4786 intraoperative periapical radiographs taken by fourth-year students during root canal treatment. The incidence and reasons behind repeating radiographs were examined on the basis of tooth type and treatment step. The imaging errors were categorized, then chi-square tests and one-way analysis of variance were performed. The overall repeat rate was 37.2%, with the highest frequency occurring during the master cone selection (54.6%) and working length determination (47.4%). The most prevalent error leading to repetition was missing the apical area (38%), which was significantly associated with radiographic repetition (p = 0.0001). Other common errors included incorrect working length adjustment (9.6%) and master apical cone positioning (20%). There was no significant difference in overall repeat rates between maxillary and mandibular teeth (p > 0.05). The high radiographic repetition rate highlights the need for enhanced radiographic training, improved faculty supervision, and greater reliance on electronic apex locators (EALs) with the radiographs to reduce unnecessary imaging. Implementing structured radiographic education and promoting the use of parallel devices can increase students' diagnostic accuracy. Clinically, reducing radiographic repetition minimizes radiation exposure and improves procedural efficiency.
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.