ArticleBMC oral health2025
Patient acceptance, time efficiency, and inter-operator agreement in intra-oral scanning with fluorescence technology for caries detection.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntra-oral scanners (IOS) have been widely used to obtain digital impressions for treatment planning and to enable a full digital workflow on virtual patients. Much less is known about the use of IOS for caries detection. This study focuses on the use of the scanners for caries detection and investigates the number of images, time and patient experiences as well as differences between operators.
methodsParticipants were recruited if they had caries present, their teeth were cleaned using a prophy brush and water and then scanned in a standardised manner. Some participants were scanned a second time by another operator. The automated caries detection results as well as the number of images needed and time taken per jaw scanned was noted. Participants were also asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their experience during the scanning process.
resultsData sets (scanning time and number of images) from 78 participants were both found to be non-normal using the Shapiro Wilk test (p < 0.001). A Mann-Whitney U test revealed that both the time taken (U = 17772.500, z = -8.066, p < 0.001) as well as the number of images needed (U = 15252.000, z =-9.651, p < 0.0001) were significantly higher for the maxilla when compared to the mandible. The same test also showed that significantly more time (U = 102718.500, z = 14.505, p < 0.0001) and images (U = 108395.500, z = 16.457, p < 0.0001) were needed for scanning permanent teeth when compared to primary teeth. The questionnaire revealed that the vast majority of participants (87%) found the scanning procedure comfortable and acceptable but there were statistically significant differences in discomfort experienced in different areas of the mouth, with the most uncomfortable area scanned being the distal surfaces of the upper molars (p < 0.001). A Wilcoxon Signed Rank test revealed no significance difference in jaw scanning time (z = 0.118, n = 12, p = 0.906) and number of images taken per arch (z = 1.255, n = 12, p = 0.209) between the operators. Cohen’s Weighted Kappa yielded the following significant result: κ = 0.744, p < 0.0001 showing good agreement between the operators’ automated caries detection results.
conclusionsIntra-oral scanning is well-accepted by patients even when used for caries detection. This scanner also yields similar results for different operators which makes it a reliable tool.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.