4.3 Article

A comparison of diagnosis of early stage interproximal caries with bitewing radiographs and periapical images using consensus reference

期刊

DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY
卷 48, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20170450

关键词

interproximal caries; enamel caries; radiography; bitewing; caries diagnosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic property of intraoral bitewing radiographs (BTW) for early stage interproximal caries, and to compare them with periapical radiographs (PA) at different levels of caries progression. Methods: A total of 241 interproximal surfaces of BTW and corresponding PAs were used. Seven teaching faculty consisting of three oral and maxillofacial radiologists, two operative faculty, and two prosthodontists evaluated the images. The observers graded images as either intact, enamel caries <1/2 width, enamel caries >1/2 width, or caries into dentin. The gold-standard was established by consensus of two experienced faculty with 35 years and 27 years of experience. Specificity, sensitivity, positive-predictive value, and negative-predictive value were calculated for the different level of caries progression. Furthermore, receiver operating curves) of BTW and PAs of each evaluator were made and the area under the curve of BTW and PAs were compared. Results: There was no significant difference in the specificity of BTW and PM BTW showed significantly higher sensitivity than PAs in all levels of caries progression (p<0.01). Positive-predictive value and negative-predictive value of BTWs were also significantly higher than PAs. One-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD test showed a significant difference in sensitivity with different levels of caries progression. The average area under the curve was significantly higher for BTWs than PAs (p<0.01). Conclusions: BTWs offer a significant advantage over PAs in the diagnoses of early stages of interproximal carious lesions.

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

4.3
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