OBJECTIVES: To investigate and compare the detection accuracy of bony defects on the condylar surface of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) in cone beam CT (CBCT) images scanned with standard and large view protocols on the same machine. METHODS: 21 dry human skulls with 42 TMJs were scanned with the large view and standard view protocols of the CBCT scanner Promax 3D (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland). Seven observers evaluated all the images for the presence or absence of defects on the surface of the condyle. Using the macroscopic examination of condylar defects as the gold standard, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. RESULTS: Macroscopic examination revealed that, of the 42 condyles, 18 were normal and 24 had a defect on the surface of the condyles. Areas under the ROC curves for the large view and the standard view group of CBCT images were 0.739 and 0.720, respectively, and no significant difference was found between the two groups of images (p = 0.902). Neither the interobserver nor the intraobserver variability were significant. CONCLUSIONS: The two scanning protocols provided by the CBCT scanner Promax 3D were reliable and comparable with detection of condylar defects.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate and compare the detection accuracy of bony defects on the condylar surface of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) in cone beam CT (CBCT) images scanned with standard and large view protocols on the same machine. METHODS: 21 dry human skulls with 42 TMJs were scanned with the large view and standard view protocols of the CBCT scanner Promax 3D (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland). Seven observers evaluated all the images for the presence or absence of defects on the surface of the condyle. Using the macroscopic examination of condylar defects as the gold standard, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. RESULTS: Macroscopic examination revealed that, of the 42 condyles, 18 were normal and 24 had a defect on the surface of the condyles. Areas under the ROC curves for the large view and the standard view group of CBCT images were 0.739 and 0.720, respectively, and no significant difference was found between the two groups of images (p = 0.902). Neither the interobserver nor the intraobserver variability were significant. CONCLUSIONS: The two scanning protocols provided by the CBCT scanner Promax 3D were reliable and comparable with detection of condylar defects.
Authors: Oana Bida Honey; William Charles Scarfe; Michael J Hilgers; Kathleen Klueber; Anibal M Silveira; Bruce S Haskell; Allan G Farman Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Zachary T Librizzi; Aditya S Tadinada; Jayasanker V Valiyaparambil; Alan G Lurie; Sanjay M Mallya Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: H Ghaeminia; G J Meijer; A Soehardi; W A Borstlap; J Mulder; S J Bergé Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 2.789