ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Intraoral vs. extraoral bitewing radiography for approximal caries detection: A multi-observer ex vivo ROC study using thin-section microscopy as gold standard.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis ex vivo study aimed to compare the accuracy in detection of interproximal natural carious lesions between intraoral (iBWR) and extraoral bitewing radiographs (eBWR) using a multi-observer design and a rigorous gold standard. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty extracted teeth (40 premolars, 40 molars) were arranged in anatomical sequence within a simulated jaw composed of PMMA and modified gypsum, with an emphasis on creating natural interproximal contacts. Approximately 50% of the teeth exhibited enamel caries, while the remaining 50% were caries-free. Image acquisition was performed using a custom-designed PMMA phantom. iBWR were obtained with a CMOS intraoral sensor (XIOS XG Supreme, Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany), and eBWR with a digital panoramic device (Orthophos SL 3D, Dentsply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany). Twenty-seven licensed dentists assessed caries presence and depth on 120 approximal surfaces (each surface assessed twice using both modalities) using a 5-point confidence scale and a 4-point lesion depth scale. Observers were blinded to the true caries status, which was determined through histological serial sectioning and brightfield microscopy. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated via ROC analysis, with Youden's index used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios. Statistical analyses were conducted at a significance level of α = 0.05.
resultsOverall accuracy was higher for iBWR (Az
conclusionsOverall, our multi-observer ex vivo study using microscopy as ground truth revealed higher diagnostic accuracy for intraoral bitewing radiography as compared to its extraoral counterpart. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our results from a highly standardized study using a rigorous gold standard support the assumption that intraoral bitewing radiography still represents the radiographic state-of-the-art in interproximal caries detection. For minute enamel, diagnostic accuracy of both methods is just above random guessing.
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.