OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic efficacy of different devices for visualizing digital images in detecting simulated internal root resorption (IRR). METHODS: 26 uniradicular human teeth were sectioned along its long axis and randomly divided into two groups. Then, they were submerged in hydrochloric acid (HCl) P.A 37% at different times to make two types of defects: Type 1 (2 hours), and type 2 (3 hours). Digital periapical radiographs were acquired in three moments: before section, after section and after immersion in acid. The images were evaluated on three different devices: 27-inch iMac Desktop, 8-inch Android Tablet, and 5.5-inch iPhone 8 Plus using a 5-point scale. RESULTS: The sensitivity and accuracy values were higher with the use of the Android Tablet, for both types of defects. For the values of the area under ROC curve, higher results were observed with the Android Tablet and lower results with the iMac, showing a significant difference (p < 0.05) when comparing the use of the iMac with the Android Tablet and iPhone 8, for type 1 defects. When comparing the different devices, in the evaluation of images of type 2 defects, the values showed no statistical difference, regardless of the device evaluated (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The size of the lesion interferes with the detection capacity in the image. However, the use of portable devices does not impair the diagnosis of IRR, regardless of size and the dental practioners may use different devices/display, under optimal viewing conditions, to detect IRR lesions, without jeopardizing the diagnostic ability.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic efficacy of different devices for visualizing digital images in detecting simulated internal root resorption (IRR). METHODS: 26 uniradicular human teeth were sectioned along its long axis and randomly divided into two groups. Then, they were submerged in hydrochloric acid (HCl) P.A 37% at different times to make two types of defects: Type 1 (2 hours), and type 2 (3 hours). Digital periapical radiographs were acquired in three moments: before section, after section and after immersion in acid. The images were evaluated on three different devices: 27-inch iMac Desktop, 8-inch Android Tablet, and 5.5-inch iPhone 8 Plus using a 5-point scale. RESULTS: The sensitivity and accuracy values were higher with the use of the Android Tablet, for both types of defects. For the values of the area under ROC curve, higher results were observed with the Android Tablet and lower results with the iMac, showing a significant difference (p < 0.05) when comparing the use of the iMac with the Android Tablet and iPhone 8, for type 1 defects. When comparing the different devices, in the evaluation of images of type 2 defects, the values showed no statistical difference, regardless of the device evaluated (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The size of the lesion interferes with the detection capacity in the image. However, the use of portable devices does not impair the diagnosis of IRR, regardless of size and the dental practioners may use different devices/display, under optimal viewing conditions, to detect IRR lesions, without jeopardizing the diagnostic ability.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dental digital radiography; Display monitor; Endodontics; Root resorption
Authors: T V Vasconcelos; G M Santaella; H A R Nascimento; K Rovaris; G M B Ambrosano; D Q Freitas Journal: Int Endod J Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 5.264