ArticlePloS one2026
A reliability assessment of the basic erosive wear examination and the tooth wear evaluation system 2.0 utilizing intraoral scan data.
Article in PloS one, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study assessed the reliability and clinical applicability of two tooth wear screening indices-Basic Erosive Wear Examination (BEWE) and the Tooth Wear Screening module of the Tooth Wear Evaluation System 2.0 (TWES 2.0)-using intraoral scans. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 246 anonymized intraoral scans from adult patients were independently evaluated by two calibrated examiners. Examiner calibration was performed prior to the study using a representative set of intraoral scans. Calibration was repeated until consensus regarding the application of the scoring criteria was achieved before formal data collection. Scores for all sextants were recorded for BEWE and TWES 2.0. Inter-rater agreement was primarily assessed using weighted kappa coefficients, as BEWE and TWES 2.0 are ordinal, numerically coded indices. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were additionally used to assess systematic directional differences between paired scores. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsBEWE demonstrated good reliability, with weighted kappa values ranging from 0.760 to 0.851 across sextants, 0.868 for the total BEWE score, and an overall weighted kappa of 0.841. TWES 2.0 showed moderate to good reliability, with weighted kappa values ranging from 0.543 to 0.761 across sextants and an overall weighted kappa of 0.715.
conclusionsBoth BEWE and TWES 2.0 are reliable and practical for screening noncarious tooth wear via intraoral scans. BEWE showed slightly higher inter-rater consistency, whereas TWES 2.0 allows more detailed evaluation of occlusal and palatal surfaces. These indices can support standardized monitoring, early detection, and clinical management of tooth wear. Examiner calibration remains essential, particularly for TWES 2.0. CLINICAL
trial registrationThis was a retrospective reliability study and did not involve an interventional clinical trial; therefore, registration was not 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.