İsmail H Baltacıoĝlu1, Hakan Eren2, Yasemin Yavuz3, Kıvanç Kamburoğlu2. 1. 1 Ankara University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey. 2. 2 Ankara University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Ankara, Turkey. 3. 3 Ankara University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biostatistics, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the in vitro diagnostic ability of CBCT images using seven different display types in the detection of recurrent caries. METHODS: Our study comprised 128 extracted human premolar and molar teeth. 8 groups each containing 16 teeth were obtained as follows: (1) Black Class I (Occlusal) amalgam filling without caries; (2) Black Class I (Occlusal) composite filling without caries; (3) Black Class II (Proximal) amalgam filling without caries; (4) Black Class II (Proximal) composite filling without caries; (5) Black Class I (Occlusal) amalgam filling with caries; (6) Black Class I (Occlusal) composite filling with caries; (7) Black Class II (Proximal) amalgam filling with caries; and (8) Black Class II (Proximal) composite filling with caries. Teeth were imaged using 100 × 90 mm field of view at three different voxel sizes of a CBCT unit (Planmeca ProMax(®) 3D ProFace™; Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland). CBCT TIFF images were opened and viewed using custom-designed software for computers on different display types. Intra- and interobserver agreements were calculated. The highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az) values for each image type, observer, reading and restoration were compared using z-tests against Az = 0.5. The significance level was set at p = 0.05. RESULTS: We found poor and moderate agreements. In general, Az values were found when software and medical diagnostic monitor were utilized. For Observer 2, Az values were statistically significantly higher when software was used on medical monitor [p = 0.036, p = 0.015 and p = 0.002, for normal-resolution mode (0.200 mm(3) voxel size), high-resolution mode (0.150 mm(3) voxel size) and low-resolution mode (0.400 mm(3) voxel size), respectively]. No statistically significant differences were found among other display types for all modes (p > 0.05). In general, no difference was found among 3 different voxel sizes (p > 0.05). In general, higher Az values were obtained for composite restorations than for amalgam restorations for all observers. For Observer 1, Az values for composite restorations were statistically significantly higher than those of amalgam restorations for MacBook and iPhone (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA) assessments (p = 0.002 and p = 0.048, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Higher Az values were observed with medical monitors when used with dedicated software compared to other display types which performed similarly in the diagnosis of recurrent caries under restorations. In addition, observers performed better in detection of recurrent caries when assessing composite restorations than amalgams.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the in vitro diagnostic ability of CBCT images using seven different display types in the detection of recurrent caries. METHODS: Our study comprised 128 extracted human premolar and molar teeth. 8 groups each containing 16 teeth were obtained as follows: (1) Black Class I (Occlusal) amalgam filling without caries; (2) Black Class I (Occlusal) composite filling without caries; (3) Black Class II (Proximal) amalgam filling without caries; (4) Black Class II (Proximal) composite filling without caries; (5) Black Class I (Occlusal) amalgam filling with caries; (6) Black Class I (Occlusal) composite filling with caries; (7) Black Class II (Proximal) amalgam filling with caries; and (8) Black Class II (Proximal) composite filling with caries. Teeth were imaged using 100 × 90 mm field of view at three different voxel sizes of a CBCT unit (Planmeca ProMax(®) 3D ProFace™; Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland). CBCT TIFF images were opened and viewed using custom-designed software for computers on different display types. Intra- and interobserver agreements were calculated. The highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az) values for each image type, observer, reading and restoration were compared using z-tests against Az = 0.5. The significance level was set at p = 0.05. RESULTS: We found poor and moderate agreements. In general, Az values were found when software and medical diagnostic monitor were utilized. For Observer 2, Az values were statistically significantly higher when software was used on medical monitor [p = 0.036, p = 0.015 and p = 0.002, for normal-resolution mode (0.200 mm(3) voxel size), high-resolution mode (0.150 mm(3) voxel size) and low-resolution mode (0.400 mm(3) voxel size), respectively]. No statistically significant differences were found among other display types for all modes (p > 0.05). In general, no difference was found among 3 different voxel sizes (p > 0.05). In general, higher Az values were obtained for composite restorations than for amalgam restorations for all observers. For Observer 1, Az values for composite restorations were statistically significantly higher than those of amalgam restorations for MacBook and iPhone (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA) assessments (p = 0.002 and p = 0.048, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Higher Az values were observed with medical monitors when used with dedicated software compared to other display types which performed similarly in the diagnosis of recurrent caries under restorations. In addition, observers performed better in detection of recurrent caries when assessing composite restorations than amalgams.
Authors: R Schulze; U Heil; D Gross; D D Bruellmann; E Dranischnikow; U Schwanecke; E Schoemer Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: David S MacDonald; Dan C Colosi; Muralidhar Mupparapu; Vandana Kumar; Werner H Shintaku; Mansur Ahmad Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Date: 2020-10-26