ArticleBMC oral health2025
Diagnostic accuracy of intraoral mobile photography for oral health screening in children: a pilot study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- mHealth for Oral Care in Aging: A Narrative Review of Mobile Applications for Older Adults and Caregivers.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Mobile Imaging-Based Machine Learning for Dental Caries, Sealants, and Fluorosis: Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Model Development and Validation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Use of dental photography in pediatric dentistry practice.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMobile dental photography is increasing in relevance in the diagnosis of oral diseases. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of intraoral mobile photography in assessing caries experience intensity (decayed, missing/extracted, filled teeth [DMFT/deft]), simplified oral hygiene index, and modified gingival index.
methodsThis study included 358 children of 7-12 years of age. A clinician evaluated DMFT/deft; simplified oral hygiene; and modified gingival indices by visual examination. Simultaneously, dental students recorded intraoral photographs with a mobile phone in eight predetermined projections. Another oral professional calculated indices based on the photographs. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of dental photography were evaluated, and Cohen's kappa was calculated.
resultsA total of 2864 photographs were evaluated in this study. The sensitivity and specificity of mobile photography for DMFT; deft; simplified oral hygiene, and modified gingival indices were 95.8 (95% confidence interval: 93.4-98.3) and 89.2 (83-95.5); 100.0 (100-100) and 88.6 (79.3-98); 89.7 (85.8-93.5) and 91.4 (86.3-96.5); and 77.6 (67.6-87.6) and 93.8 (91-96.6), respectively; positive predictive values were 96.2, 97.7, 95.6, and 74.3; negative predictive values 88.3, 100.0, 80.9, and 94.8; and Cohen's Kappa values were 0.848, 0.928, 0.784, and 0.702, respectively.
conclusionsIntraoral mobile photography, based on appropriate guidelines, is reliable for assessing DMFT/deft; simplified oral hygiene; and modified gingival indices in children and could be a useful tool in dental public health, supporting the involvement of dental students in similar research studies.
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.