4.5 Article

Evaluation of the Reliability and Accuracy of Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography for Diagnosing Periapical Cysts from Granulomas

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
卷 39, 期 12, 页码 1485-1490

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.08.019

关键词

Biopsy; cone-beam computed tomography; differential diagnosis; granuloma; periapical cyst

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) imaging against the histopathologic diagnosis for the differential diagnosis of periapical cysts (cavitated lesions) from (solid) granulomas. Methods: Thirty-six periapical lesions were imaged using CBCT scans. Apicoectomy surgeries were conducted for histopathological examination. Evaluator 1 examined each CBCT scan for the presence of 6 radiologic characteristics of a cyst (ie, location, periphery, shape, internal structure, effects on surrounding structure, and perforation of the cortical plate). Not every cyst showed all radiologic features (eg, not all cysts perforate the cortical plate). For the purpose of finding the minimum number of diagnostic criteria present in a scan to diagnose a lesion as a cyst, we conducted 6 receiver operating characteristic curve analyses comparing CBCT diagnoses with the histopathologic diagnosis. Two other independent evaluators examined the CBCT lesions. Statistical tests were conducted to examine the accuracy, inter-rater reliability, and intrarater reliability of CBCT images. Results: Findings showed that a score of >= 4 positive findings was the optimal scoring system. The accuracies of differential diagnoses of 3 evaluators were moderate (area under the curve = 0.76, 0.70, and 0.69 for evaluators 1, 2, and 3, respectively). The inter-rater agreement of the 3 evaluators was excellent (alpha = 0.87). The intrarater agreement was good to excellent (kappa = 0.71, 0.76, and 0.77). Conclusions: CBCT images can provide a moderately accurate diagnosis between cysts and granulomas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据