Polyane Mazucatto Queiroz1, Gustavo Machado Santaella2, Ana Lúcia Alvares Capelozza3, Pedro Luiz Rosalen4, Deborah Queiroz Freitas2, Francisco Haiter-Neto2. 1. Department of Oral Diagnosis, Area of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: polyanequeiroz@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Oral Diagnosis, Area of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Stomatology, Area of Oral Radiology, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Department of Physiological Sciences, Area of Pharmacology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the image quality and the diagnosis of root fractures when using the Zoom Reconstruction tool (J Morita, Kyoto, Japan). METHODS: A utility wax phantom with a metal sample inside was used for objective evaluation, and a mandible with 27 single-rooted teeth (with and without obturation and with and without vertical or horizontal fractures) was used for diagnostic evaluation. The images were acquired in 3 protocols: protocol 1, field of view (FOV) of 4 × 4 cm and a voxel size of 0.08 mm; protocol 2, FOV of 10 × 10 cm and a voxel size of 0.2 mm; and protocol 3, Zoom Reconstruction of images from protocol 2 (FOV of 4 × 4 cm and a voxel size of 0.08 mm). The objective evaluation was achieved by measuring the image noise, and the diagnosis of fractures was performed by 3 evaluators. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to calculate accuracy, and analysis of variance compared the accuracy and image quality of the protocols. RESULTS: Regarding quality, protocol 1 was superior to protocol 2 (P < .0001) and Zoom Reconstruction (P < .0001). Additionally, images of protocol 2 presented less noise than the Zoom Reconstruction image (P < .0001); however, for diagnosis, Zoom Reconstruction was superior in relation to protocol 2 (P = .011) and did not differ from protocol 1 (P = .228) for the diagnosis of a vertical root fracture in filled teeth. CONCLUSIONS: The Zoom Reconstruction tool allows better accuracy for vertical root fracture detection in filled teeth, making it possible to obtain a higher-resolution image from a lower-resolution examination without having to expose the patient to more radiation.
INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the image quality and the diagnosis of root fractures when using the Zoom Reconstruction tool (J Morita, Kyoto, Japan). METHODS: A utility wax phantom with a metal sample inside was used for objective evaluation, and a mandible with 27 single-rooted teeth (with and without obturation and with and without vertical or horizontal fractures) was used for diagnostic evaluation. The images were acquired in 3 protocols: protocol 1, field of view (FOV) of 4 × 4 cm and a voxel size of 0.08 mm; protocol 2, FOV of 10 × 10 cm and a voxel size of 0.2 mm; and protocol 3, Zoom Reconstruction of images from protocol 2 (FOV of 4 × 4 cm and a voxel size of 0.08 mm). The objective evaluation was achieved by measuring the image noise, and the diagnosis of fractures was performed by 3 evaluators. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to calculate accuracy, and analysis of variance compared the accuracy and image quality of the protocols. RESULTS: Regarding quality, protocol 1 was superior to protocol 2 (P < .0001) and Zoom Reconstruction (P < .0001). Additionally, images of protocol 2 presented less noise than the Zoom Reconstruction image (P < .0001); however, for diagnosis, Zoom Reconstruction was superior in relation to protocol 2 (P = .011) and did not differ from protocol 1 (P = .228) for the diagnosis of a vertical root fracture in filled teeth. CONCLUSIONS: The Zoom Reconstruction tool allows better accuracy for vertical root fracture detection in filled teeth, making it possible to obtain a higher-resolution image from a lower-resolution examination without having to expose the patient to more radiation.
Authors: Luciano Augusto Cano Martins; Polyane Mazucatto Queiroz; Yuri Nejaim; Karla de Faria Vasconcelos; Francisco Carlos Groppo; Francisco Haiter-Neto Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 2.419