The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An in vivo Comparison of Radiographic and Directly Assessed Clinical Caries Status of Posterior Approximal Surfaces in Primary and Permanent Teeth
Abstract
At general dental practices in Scotland 211 children between the ages of 5 and 15 years were examined by 1 observer. A comparison of the status of 1,468 permanent and 756 primary posterior approximal surfaces was made on the basis of their appearance on posterior bite-wing radiographs and the findings of a direct in vivo visual examination, made after temporary tooth separation had been achieved over 1 week using elastomeric separation. For permanent tooth surfaces, 0% of radiolucencies in the outer half of enamel, 10.5% in the inner half of enamel, 40.9% extending to the outer half of dentine, and 100% extending to the inner half of the dentine were found clinically to be cavitated. The analogous results for primary teeth were that 2.0, 2.9, 28.3, and 95.5%, respectively, of radiolucencies appeared to be cavitated. Although further research with larger numbers of permanent teeth is indicated, these results may contribute to a re-evaluation of the optimal threshold for restorative intervention at approximal sites. Greater numbers of approximal radiolucencies and carious lesions (p less than 0.001) were found in those surfaces which initially had a normal anatomical contact when compared to those which did not.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Minimal intervention dentistry — a review
Tyas, M. J., Anusavice, K. J., Frencken, J. E., & Mount, G. J. (2000) · International Dental Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1875-595x.2000.tb00540.x · Cited by 622
Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on nonrestorative treatments for carious lesions
Slayton, R. L., Urquhart, O., Araujo, M. W. B., Fontana, M., Guzmán-Armstrong, S., Nascimento, M. M., Nový, B. B., Tinanoff, N., Weyant, R. J., Wolff, M. S., et al. (2018) · The Journal of the American Dental Association · doi:10.1016/j.adaj.2018.07.002 · Cited by 317
The American Dental Association Caries Classification System for Clinical Practice
Young, D. A., Nový, B. B., Zeller, G. G., Hale, R., Hart, T. C., Truelove, E. L., Ekstrand, K. R., Featherstone, J. D. B., Fontana, M., Ismail, A., et al. (2015) · The Journal of the American Dental Association · doi:10.1016/j.adaj.2014.11.018 · Cited by 237
Self-citationA functional natural dentition for all—and for life? The oral healthcare system needs revision
Fejerskov, O., Escobar, G., Jøssing, M., & Baelum, V. (2013) · Journal of Oral Rehabilitation · doi:10.1111/joor.12082 · Cited by 75
Metadata
- Authors
- Pitts, N. B., & Rimmer, P. A.
- Venue
- Caries Research
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 1992
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 146-152
- ISSN
- 0008-6568 (ISSN-L)
- 1421-976X
- OpenAlex
- W2064173223
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An in vivo Comparison of Radiographic and Directly Assessed Clinical Caries Status of Posterior Approximal Surfaces in Primary and Permanent Teeth. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000261500
- The paper
- Pitts, N. B., & Rimmer, P. A. (1992). An in vivo Comparison of Radiographic and Directly Assessed Clinical Caries Status of Posterior Approximal Surfaces in Primary and Permanent Teeth. Caries Research. https://doi.org/10.1159/000261500
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.