Cácia Signori1, Kauê Collares1, Catarina B F Cumerlato1, Marcos B Correa1, Niek J M Opdam2, Maximiliano S Cenci3. 1. Federal University of Pelotas, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Gonçalves Chaves, 457, 5th floor, Pelotas, RS, 96015560, Brazil. 2. Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, College of Dental Sciences, Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Ph van Leydenlaan 25, PO Box 9101 6500HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Federal University of Pelotas, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Gonçalves Chaves, 457, 5th floor, Pelotas, RS, 96015560, Brazil. Electronic address: Maximiliano.cenci@ufpel.edu.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the validity of assessment of intraoral digital photography in the evaluation of dental restorations. METHODS: Intraoral photographs of anterior and posterior restorations were classified based on FDI criteria according to the need for intervention: no intervention, repair and replacement. Evaluations were performed by an experienced expert in restorative dentistry (gold standard evaluator) and 3 trained dentists (consensus). The clinical inspection was the reference standard method. The prevalence of failures was explored. Cohen's kappa statistic was used. Validity was accessed by sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio and predictives values. RESULTS: Higher prevalence of failed restorations intervention was identified by the intraoral photography (17.7%) in comparison to the clinical evaluation (14.1%). Moderate agreement in the diagnosis of total failures was shown between the methods for the gold standard evaluator (kappa = 0.51) and consensus of evaluators (kappa = 0.53). Gold standard evaluator and consensus showed substantial and moderate agreement for posterior restorations (kappa = 0.61; 0.59), and fair and moderate agreement for anterior restorations (kappa = 0.36; 0.43), respectively. The accuracy was 84.8% in the assessment by intraoral photographs. Sensitivity and specificity values of 87.5% and 89.3% were found. CONCLUSIONS: Under the limits of this study, the assessment of digital photography performed by intraoral camera is an indirect diagnostic method valid for the evaluation of dental restorations, mainly in posterior teeth. This method should be employed taking into account the higher detection of defects provided by the images, which are not always clinically relevant.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the validity of assessment of intraoral digital photography in the evaluation of dental restorations. METHODS: Intraoral photographs of anterior and posterior restorations were classified based on FDI criteria according to the need for intervention: no intervention, repair and replacement. Evaluations were performed by an experienced expert in restorative dentistry (gold standard evaluator) and 3 trained dentists (consensus). The clinical inspection was the reference standard method. The prevalence of failures was explored. Cohen's kappa statistic was used. Validity was accessed by sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio and predictives values. RESULTS: Higher prevalence of failed restorations intervention was identified by the intraoral photography (17.7%) in comparison to the clinical evaluation (14.1%). Moderate agreement in the diagnosis of total failures was shown between the methods for the gold standard evaluator (kappa = 0.51) and consensus of evaluators (kappa = 0.53). Gold standard evaluator and consensus showed substantial and moderate agreement for posterior restorations (kappa = 0.61; 0.59), and fair and moderate agreement for anterior restorations (kappa = 0.36; 0.43), respectively. The accuracy was 84.8% in the assessment by intraoral photographs. Sensitivity and specificity values of 87.5% and 89.3% were found. CONCLUSIONS: Under the limits of this study, the assessment of digital photography performed by intraoral camera is an indirect diagnostic method valid for the evaluation of dental restorations, mainly in posterior teeth. This method should be employed taking into account the higher detection of defects provided by the images, which are not always clinically relevant.
Authors: Samuel Rodríguez-López; Matías Ferrán Escobedo Martínez; Luis Junquera; María García-Pola Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Verônica P Lima; Luuk A M J Crins; Niek J M Opdam; Rafael R Moraes; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Marie-Charlotte D N J M Huysmans; Bas A C Loomans Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-07-26 Impact factor: 3.606
Authors: Antonio Ciardo; Sarah K Sonnenschein; Marlinde M Simon; Maurice Ruetters; Marcia Spindler; Philipp Ziegler; Ingvi Reccius; Alexander-Nicolaus Spies; Jana Kykal; Eva-Marie Baumann; Susanne Fackler; Christopher Büsch; Ti-Sun Kim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 3.240