ArticleActa odontologica Scandinavica2026
Operator-related low diagnostic quality in bitewing examinations performed with sensors.
Article in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveBitewing radiographs are essential for caries and marginal bone diagnostics. Diagnostic quality depends on operator technique. This study evaluated patient-level diagnostic quality of sensor-based bitewing examinations to identify operator-related deficiencies. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this retrospective, cross-sectional study, 962 bitewing examinations from 31 Swedish public dental practices were randomly selected and evaluated for caries and marginal bone level diagnostic image quality, according to European guidelines. Available panoramic/periapical images acquired in connection with the bitewing examinations were included in a second quality assessment. Recorded deficiencies included sensor placement, collimation artifacts, and insufficient biting on the sensor holder. Associations between diagnostic quality and sensor size, number of images, age group, jaw, side, and sex were analyzed using χ2 test and logistic regression. Three calibrated examiners performed the evaluations.
resultsThe requirements were fulfilled in 5% and acceptable in 43% of the bitewing examinations, increasing to 7% and 45% when including panoramic/periapical images. Quality was better with larger sensor sizes (p < 0.001), more exposures (p < 0.001), panoramic/periapical images (p < 0.001), age ≥12 years (p < 0.001), and in the maxilla (p < 0.001). Common errors were incorrect sensor placement (94%), collimation artifacts (57%), and insufficient biting (15%). No differences were found between side or sex. Inter-observer agreement was substantial (Fleiss' kappa = 0.61; Gwet's AC1 = 0.62); intra-observer agreement was almost perfect (Cohen's kappa = 0.88).
conclusionsMost bitewing examinations, especially in children, fail to meet diagnostic requirements due to deficient operator performance and quality assessment. Panoramic/periapical images may improve diagnostic quality but should not replace optimized bitewing examinations. Targeted continuing education is required.
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.