Mohammed Barayan1, Ibrahim Nasseh2, Hassem Geha3, Marcel Noujeim4. 1. Oral Radiology Graduate, Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, University of Texas, Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA. 2. Professor and Chairman, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology and Imaging, Faculty of Dentistry, Beirut, Lebanon. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, University of Texas, Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA. 4. Professor, Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, University of Texas, Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Detection of root fracture is challenging both clinically and radiographically. Root fractures occur in different planes with unpredictable presentations. AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of selected digital image enhancement tools in the detection of horizontal Root Fracture (RF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty three roots, of single and multi-rooted teeth, in eight dentate human cadaver mandibles were selected for this study. Following minimally traumatic extraction of the teeth, horizontal fractures were induced in 23 roots and remounted in the empty sockets of their respective human dry mandibles. The remaining teeth with no fractures were used as the control group. Twenty two periapical radiographs were obtained by using the paralleling technique and using Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS). Image J software was used to enhance the original images with the Inversion (IN), Histogram-Equalization (EQ) and Polynomial (Poly) tools. A total of 88 periapical images (original and three enhanced images) were reviewed independently by three Oral and Maxillofacial Radiologists and two Endodontists. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the accuracy of fracture detection and the kappa statistic was used to assess agreement among reviewers. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy for one of the observers was significantly different in detection of RF with only EQ enhancement tool. Sensitivity and specificity were not significantly different. Interobserver agreement showed no significant difference between imaging methods. Intra-observer agreement was high to moderate. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between the different imaging modalities. No statistical difference for the agreement was found among or between the endodontists and radiologists in this study.
INTRODUCTION: Detection of root fracture is challenging both clinically and radiographically. Root fractures occur in different planes with unpredictable presentations. AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of selected digital image enhancement tools in the detection of horizontal Root Fracture (RF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty three roots, of single and multi-rooted teeth, in eight dentate human cadaver mandibles were selected for this study. Following minimally traumatic extraction of the teeth, horizontal fractures were induced in 23 roots and remounted in the empty sockets of their respective human dry mandibles. The remaining teeth with no fractures were used as the control group. Twenty two periapical radiographs were obtained by using the paralleling technique and using Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS). Image J software was used to enhance the original images with the Inversion (IN), Histogram-Equalization (EQ) and Polynomial (Poly) tools. A total of 88 periapical images (original and three enhanced images) were reviewed independently by three Oral and Maxillofacial Radiologists and two Endodontists. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the accuracy of fracture detection and the kappa statistic was used to assess agreement among reviewers. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy for one of the observers was significantly different in detection of RF with only EQ enhancement tool. Sensitivity and specificity were not significantly different. Interobserver agreement showed no significant difference between imaging methods. Intra-observer agreement was high to moderate. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between the different imaging modalities. No statistical difference for the agreement was found among or between the endodontists and radiologists in this study.
Entities:
Keywords:
Digital imaging; Image processing; Periapical radiograph; Polynomial model