ArticleOral radiology2026
Assessment of posterior interproximal surfaces on bitewing and panoramic radiographs by dental interns and an artificial intelligence application.
Article in Oral radiology, 2026. 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.
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
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the interproximal surfaces of posterior teeth using panoramic and bitewing radiographs, and to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dental interns with that of an artificial intelligence application.
methodsInterproximal surfaces were evaluated on 11 panoramic radiographs and 22 bitewing radiographs obtained from 11 patients. The evaluation focused on the presence and depth of caries on interproximal surfaces without restorative fillings, and on the detection of secondary caries and overhanging dental restorations on restored surfaces. Panoramic and bitewing radiographs were evaluated by 20 fourth- and 20 fifth-year dental interns, and CranioCatch.
resultsBitewing radiographs were significantly more effective than panoramic radiographs in detecting interproximal caries, caries depth, secondary caries, and overhanging restorations (p < 0.001). In the detection of secondary caries on bitewing radiographs, the artificial intelligence application performed worse than both dental intern groups, and this difference was statistically significant (p = 0.033). In determining caries depth on panoramic and bitewing radiographs, the artificial intelligence application yielded numerically higher diagnostic accuracy values compared to the dental intern groups, but these differences were not statistically significant.
conclusionOur study concluded that the diagnostic accuracy of the artificial intelligence application in evaluating the interproximal surfaces of posterior teeth was comparable to dental interns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41108479What 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.