Fedil Andraws Yalda1,2, Rosalyn J Clarkson3, Jonathan Davies4, Peter G J Rout5, Anita Sengupta2, Keith Horner2. 1. College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq. 2. Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. 3. Department of Radiology, Leeds Dental Institute, Clarendon Way, Leeds LS2 9LU, UK. 4. Department of Dental Radiological Imaging, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Floor 23, Tower Wing, Guy's Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London SE1 9RT, UK. 5. Birmingham Dental Hospital, Birmingham Community Healthcare Foundation NHS Trust, 5 Mill Pool Way, Birmingham, B5 7EG, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The evidence for diagnostic accuracy using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for dental applications depends heavily on ex vivo research, but there is little knowledge of whether the model used affects the diagnostic accuracy results. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of different designs of anthropomorphic models on diagnostic accuracy for the specific task of dental root fracture detection. METHODS: Horizontal or oblique root fracture was induced in 24 of 48 permanent maxillary incisors. The 48 teeth were scanned by CBCT using standard clinical exposure factors on five occasions, each with a different model design. Scans were viewed by five dental and maxillofacial radiologists, who each made a forced diagnosis of fracture or no fracture in each root and a judgment on root fracture using a five-point confidence scale. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp) and areas under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (Az) were calculated for each observer for each model. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the diagnostic accuracy measurements recorded using different models. There were, however, numerous significant differences between observers using the same anthropomorphic model. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the differences in X-ray attenuation between the five model designs, the results suggest that the anthropomorphic model does not affect the results of diagnostic accuracy studies on root fracture using this CBCT machine at standard clinical exposures. This provides some confidence in the previously published evidence. The interobserver diagnosis differences indicate that research using only two observers could provide misleading results.
OBJECTIVES: The evidence for diagnostic accuracy using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for dental applications depends heavily on ex vivo research, but there is little knowledge of whether the model used affects the diagnostic accuracy results. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of different designs of anthropomorphic models on diagnostic accuracy for the specific task of dental root fracture detection. METHODS: Horizontal or oblique root fracture was induced in 24 of 48 permanent maxillary incisors. The 48 teeth were scanned by CBCT using standard clinical exposure factors on five occasions, each with a different model design. Scans were viewed by five dental and maxillofacial radiologists, who each made a forced diagnosis of fracture or no fracture in each root and a judgment on root fracture using a five-point confidence scale. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp) and areas under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (Az) were calculated for each observer for each model. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the diagnostic accuracy measurements recorded using different models. There were, however, numerous significant differences between observers using the same anthropomorphic model. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the differences in X-ray attenuation between the five model designs, the results suggest that the anthropomorphic model does not affect the results of diagnostic accuracy studies on root fracture using this CBCT machine at standard clinical exposures. This provides some confidence in the previously published evidence. The interobserver diagnosis differences indicate that research using only two observers could provide misleading results.
Authors: Anthony J Diangelis; Jens O Andreasen; Kurt A Ebeleseder; David J Kenny; Martin Trope; Asgeir Sigurdsson; Lars Andersson; Cecilia Bourguignon; Marie Therese Flores; Morris Lamar Hicks; Antonio R Lenzi; Barbro Malmgren; Alex J Moule; Yango Pohl; Mitsuhiro Tsukiboshi Journal: Pediatr Dent Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 1.874
Authors: Bassam Hassan; Maria Elissavet Metska; Ahmet Rifat Ozok; Paul van der Stelt; Paul Rudolf Wesselink Journal: J Endod Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.171