Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40833216›Full record

ArticleAustralian dental journal2025

Dentists' Ability to Identify Tooth Resorption on Radiographic Images and Their Preferences for Terminology.

Sheema Pham, Paul V Abbott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Australian 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sheema PhamUWA Dental School, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.
Paul V AbbottUWA Dental School, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5727-4211

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTooth resorption has no universal classification, which leads to confusion. The aims were to assess dentists' ability to radiographically identify resorption and to determine their terminology preferences for three types of resorption. MATERIALS AND

methodsDentists completed an electronic questionnaire. Part 1 concerned professional profiles plus self-rating of each participant's level of resorption knowledge. In Part 2, participants identified types of resorption from radiographs. In Part 3, participants chose their preferred terminology and provided reasons for their choices.

resultsOf 444 complete responses, 55.6% of participants self-rated their knowledge as 'Acceptable'. The average number of correct responses when identifying resorption was 52.9% (6.3 out of 12; range: 0-12). Significant differences existed for gender, practice area, graduation year and education level. Preferred terms were external inflammatory resorption (72.3%) and external replacement resorption (63.3%) but no clear preference existed for external invasive resorption (31.8%) or external cervical invasive resorption (35.6%). Most common reasons for selecting terms were 'more descriptive', and a 'more accurate representation of what occurs in the tissues'.

conclusionOn average, dentists correctly identified 52.9% of the resorptive defects. There is a need for a standardised classification of the different types of tooth resorption.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceDentistsRadiography, DentalTerminology as TopicTooth ResorptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesclassificationinflammatory resorptioninvasive resorptionreplacement resorptionterminologytooth resorption

Identifiers

PMID40833216
PMCPMC12661130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.