ArticleBMC oral health2025
Capability of dental practitioners to identify condylar changes on orthopantomograms: a multicenter cross-sectional study in Pakistan.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA comprehensive understanding of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) anatomy and Condylar changes is pivotal in facilitating the accurate diagnosis and proficient management of patients exhibiting TMJ dysfunction. This study is focused on assessing the Pakistani dental practitioner's ability to identify condylar changes on OPGs and compare diagnostic accuracy across different dental specialities.
methodsCross sectional study method was used. WHO calculator was used to determine a sample size of 385, maintaining a 5% margin of error, and a 95% confidence level. A non-probability consecutive method of sampling was used for the sampling process to ensure a steady inclusion of participants over the study duration.
resultsA total of 385 dental practitioners participated in the study, comprising 100 (26.0%) males and 285 (74.0%) females. House officers that participated in the study were 146 (37.9) 127 (33%) were postgraduates, 78 (20.3%) were general dentists and 14 (3.6%) were consultants. The results indicated that 251 (65.2%) of the participants observed the condyles on both sides in OPGs during their daily practice. Only 17.1% of practitioners demonstrated complete agreement across all six OPGs, highlighting substantial variability in diagnostic accuracy. General dentistry consistently demonstrated the highest accuracy rates in identifying condylar hyperplasia (61.9%), flattening (58%), Sclerosis (46.3%), deviation/dislocation (64%), hypoplasia (50.4%), and surface erosion (56.9%) in comparison to other specialities.
conclusionsThe findings of the study conclude that in certain cases, Pakistani general dentists performed better in terms of correctly identifying OPGs. However, in other cases specialists were equally proficient in recognizing various condylar alterations. This study identified significant gaps in knowledge in the correct identification of condylar changes among dental practitioners both at specialists and general dentist's level. These results suggest us that additional training might be needed equally, at regular intervals for both general and specialist dentists.
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.