ArticleBMC medical education2026
Radiographic evaluation of root canal fillings: can undergraduate dental students perform it?
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadiographic evaluation is a simple and reliable way to assess the technical quality of root canal treatment. This study investigates the extent to which undergraduate dental students' use of periapical radiographs to evaluate root canal filling quality conforms with a gold standard of evaluation established by expert endodontists; it also assesses their perceived confidence and self-reported estimated disagreement ranges (sEDR).
methodsA total of 107 students evaluated 60 periapical radiographs using four predefined criteria for root canal filling quality: length, density, taper and procedural errors. The evaluations of four experienced endodontists established a "gold standard" that was used as the reference for assessing the extent to which students' evaluations of each periapical radiograph agreed with predefined criteria. Perceived confidence and sEDR were also recorded. Students' agreement with the gold standard was assessed using Cohen's kappa (κ); diagnostic performance was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). The significance level was set at p < 0.05.
resultsAgreement with the gold standard was moderate for length (κ = 0.41 and 0.48), slight for density (κ = 0.17 and 0.15) and slight to fair for taper (κ = 0.17 and 0.23) in fourth- and fifth-year students, respectively. It was poor for procedural errors overall (κ = 0.11). There were no significant differences in students' agreement with the gold standard according to academic year, perceived confidence or sEDR (p > 0.05). For length, density and taper, fifth-year students showed higher sensitivity, PPV and NPV; whereas specificity was higher in fourth-year students.
conclusionsDental students demonstrated limited proficiency in radiographic evaluation of root canal filling quality, and their performance was independent of academic year, perceived confidence and sEDR. Clinical experience appears to improve recognition of non-ideal root canal fillings, whereas earlier training appears to improve recognition of ideal ones. Notably, perceived confidence and sEDR varied by academic year.
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.