| Literature DB >> 22956955 |
Bruna Moraes Monteiro1, Denys Silveira Nobrega Filho, Patrícia de Medeiros Loureiro Lopes, Marcelo Augusto Oliveira de Sales.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to analyze the influence of filters (algorithms) to improve the image of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in diagnosis of osteolytic lesions of the mandible, in order to establish the protocols for viewing images more suitable for CBCT diagnostics. 15 dry mandibles in which perforations were performed, simulating lesions, were submitted to CBCT examination. Two examiners analyzed the images, using filters to improve image Hard, Normal, and Very Sharp, contained in the iCAT Vision software, and protocols for assessment: axial; sagittal and coronal; and axial, sagittal and coronal planes simultaneously (MPR), on two occasions. The sensitivity and specificity (validity) of the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) have been demonstrated as the values achieved were above 75% for sensitivity and above 85% for specificity, reaching around 95.5% of sensitivity and 99% of specificity when we used the appropriate observation protocol. It was concluded that the use of filters (algorithms) to improve the CBCT image influences the diagnosis, due to the fact that all measured values were correspondingly higher when it was used the filter Very Sharp, which justifies its use for clinical activities, followed by Hard and Normal filters, in order of decreasing values.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22956955 PMCID: PMC3432359 DOI: 10.1155/2012/239306
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Dent ISSN: 1687-8728
Evaluation of the sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy (A) for the total group in the study of the presence or absence of simulated lesions.
| S | Sp | PPV | NPV | A | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| 417/468 | 89.1 | 320/342 | 93.6 | 417/439 | 95.0 | 320/371 | 86.3 | 737/810 | 91.0 |
Evaluation of the sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy (A), according to theplace searched, in the study of the presence or absence of simulated lesions.
|
| S | Sp | PPV | NPV | A | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % | |
| Buccal | 157/171 | 91.8 | 98/99 | 99.0 | 157/158 | 99.4 | 98/112 | 97.5 | 255/270 | 94.4 |
| Lingual | 135/153 | 88.2 | 100/117 | 85.5 | 135/152 | 88.8 | 100/118 | 84.7 | 235/270 | 87.0 |
| Base | 125/144 | 86.8 | 122/126 | 96.8 | 125/129 | 96.9 | 122/141 | 86.5 | 247/270 | 91.5 |
Evaluation of agreement between the gold standard with each observer and assessment, in the study of loci numbers.
| Observer | Assessment | Agreement | Kappa | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % | (Agreement rate of 95%) | ||
| 1 | 1st | 683 | 84.3 | 0.77 (0.73 to 0.81) |
| 1 | 2nd | 723 | 89.3 | 0.84 (0.81 to 0.87) |
| 2 | 1st | 686 | 84.7 | 0.77 (0.73 to 0.81) |
| 2 | 2nd | 710 | 87.7 | 0.81 (0.79 to 0.85) |
Evaluation of agreement between observers (interobserver) for each evaluation, in the study of loci numbers.
| Assessment | Agreement | Kappa | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| % | (AR of 95%) | |
| 1 | 779 | 96.2 | 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96) |
| 2 | 781 | 96.4 | 0.95 (0.93 to 0.97) |
Evaluation of the sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy (A), according to the protocol type, in the study of the presence or absence of simulated lesions.
| Protocol type | S | Sp | PPV | NPV | A | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % | |
| Axial | 136/156 | 87.2 | 107/114 | 93.9 | 136/143 | 95.1 | 107/127 | 84.3 | 243/270 | 90.0 |
| Coronal and sagital | 132/156 | 84.6 | 106/114 | 93.0 | 132/140 | 94.3 | 106/130 | 81.5 | 238/270 | 88.1 |
| MPR | 149/156 | 95.5 | 107/114 | 93.9 | 149/156 | 95.5 | 107/114 | 93.9 | 256/270 | 94.8 |
Evaluation of the sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy (A), according to the type of filter, in the study of the presence or absence of simulated lesions.
| Type of filter | S | Sp | PPV | NPV | A | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % | |
| Hard | 135/156 | 86.5 | 105/114 | 92.1 | 135/144 | 93.8 | 105/126 | 92.1 | 240/270 | 88.9 |
| Normal | 134/156 | 85.9 | 103/114 | 90.4 | 134/145 | 92.4 | 103/125 | 82.4 | 237/270 | 87.8 |
| Very sharp | 148/156 | 94.9 | 112/114 | 98.2 | 148/150 | 98.7 | 112/120 | 93.3 | 260/270 | 96.3 |
Figure 1Evaluation of the sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), and accuracy (A), according to the type of filter, in the study of the presence or absence of simulated lesions.
Figure 2Evaluation of the sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), and accuracy (A), according to the type of protocol, in the study of the presence or absence of simulated lesions.
Figure 3Agreement between the gold standard with each examiner and assessment, in the study of loci numbers.
Evaluation of intraobserver agreement in the study of loci numbers.
| Observer | Agreement | Kappa | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| % | (AR of 95%) | |
| 1 | 728 | 89.9 | 0.85 (0.82 to 0.88) |
| 2 | 688 | 84.9 | 0.77 (0.73 to 0.81) |