Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42262470›Full record

ArticleOral radiology2026

Diagnostic evaluation of the relationship between impacted mandibular third molars and the mandibular canal in panoramic radiographs shared via WhatsApp.

Jerusa Jobim Jardim, Heraldo Luis Dias da Silveira, Nádia Assein Arús, Priscila Fernanda da Silveira Tiescher, Deise Ponzoni, Mariana Boessio Vizzotto

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oral radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jerusa Jobim JardimSurgery and Orthopedics Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Ramiro Barcelos 2492, 5th Floor, Porto Alegre, 90035000, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6195-3268
Heraldo Luis Dias da SilveiraSurgery and Orthopedics Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Ramiro Barcelos 2492, 5th Floor, Porto Alegre, 90035000, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3456-7043
Nádia Assein ArúsSurgery and Orthopedics Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Ramiro Barcelos 2492, 5th Floor, Porto Alegre, 90035000, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7517-5188
Priscila Fernanda da Silveira TiescherSurgery and Orthopedics Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Ramiro Barcelos 2492, 5th Floor, Porto Alegre, 90035000, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7015-5292
Deise PonzoniSurgery and Orthopedics Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Ramiro Barcelos 2492, 5th Floor, Porto Alegre, 90035000, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2855-7495
Mariana Boessio VizzottoSurgery and Orthopedics Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Ramiro Barcelos 2492, 5th Floor, Porto Alegre, 90035000, Brazil. mariana.vizzotto@ufrgs.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3149-7913

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of computer and smartphone screens for assessing the radiographic proximity between impacted mandibular third molars and the mandibular canal.

methodsFour examiners evaluated 121 digital panoramic radiographs for the presence of proximity between third molars and the mandibular canal, as well as for specific radiographic signs indicative of this relationship. Assessments were performed on a computer screen and on their personal smartphone screens; for the latter, images were shared via WhatsApp. Diagnostic performance was analyzed using accuracy (Ac), sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV). Differences in the frequency of correct and incorrect responses between methods were tested using the McNemar test, as were the proportions of correct and incorrect classifications for each radiographic sign.

resultsExaminers correctly classified true positives and true negatives in 86.5% of cases using the computer monitor and 85.1% using the smartphone. Comparable diagnostic performance was observed for computer monitor (Se = 0.975; Sp = 0.758; Ac = 0.865) and smartphone (Se = 0.942; Sp = 0.762; Ac = 0.851) assessments. No statistically significant differences were found between methods for any radiographic sign (p > 0.05).

conclusionSmartphones demonstrated diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of computer screens for evaluating the proximity between impacted mandibular third molars and the mandibular canal on panoramic radiographs.

Indexed as

Mandibular CanalMobile ApplicationsMolar, ThirdRadiography, PanoramicSmartphoneTooth, ImpactedAdultFemaleHumansMaleMandibleSensitivity and SpecificityMobile applicationsMolars, thirdPanoramic radiographySmartphone

Identifiers

PMID42262470
PMCPMC13619673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.