ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2025
Diagnostic Accuracy of Methods Used to Detect Cracked Teeth.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Methods for Detecting Dental Cracks: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Can artificial intelligence diagnose the invisible? A scenario-based evaluation of AI performance in cracked tooth diagnosis.Odontology · 2026Article
- Cracked teeth: a review of etiology, traditional detection methods, and novel diagnostic techniques.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Review
- Quantitative Percussion Diagnostics (QPD): Seeing What the Eye Can't With Objective Structural Data.Cureus · 2026Article
- Saving the split: An umbrella review on therapeutic approaches for cracked tooth syndrome.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Review
- Incidence of Cracked Teeth Before, During, and After the Covid-19 Pandemic-A Retrospective Analysis in a German Private General Practice.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesCracked tooth diagnosis is challenging due to the unknown diagnostic accuracy of tools, resulting in misdiagnosis and suboptimal treatment outcomes. The primary objective of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of four commonly used visual tests in diagnosing cracked teeth based on clinical appearance, independent of patient symptoms. The secondary objective was to assess if clinical experience influences the ability to accurately identify the presence of a crack. The tertiary objective was to assess the ability of the index tests to accurately determine the location of the crack. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe test sample included 30 teeth extracted due to a suspected crack. Index tests included macrophotography, surgical microscope, transillumination, and DIAGNOcam. Microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) served as the gold standard. Four examiners of varying experience assessed images of each tooth paired with each index test. The examiner's findings were compared against micro-CT to determine the diagnostic accuracy of index tests. The relationship between clinical experience and diagnostic accuracy was explored.
resultsTransillumination demonstrated the highest accuracy (65.3%) and sensitivity (68.8%) for diagnosing cracks. Macrophotography and high-magnification microscope had the highest specificity of 92.9%. Positive predictive value (PPV) was greatest with high-magnification microscope (96.7%). The low-magnification microscope demonstrated the lowest accuracy (52.2%). Intra-rater reliability was moderate to substantial, and inter-rater reliability was fair. Experienced dentists were more accurate in detecting cracked teeth.
conclusionsVisual diagnostic methods cannot definitively diagnose cracks. Further studies are required to explore the impact of a combination of tools in diagnosing cracked teeth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.