Suppr超能文献

体外比较 Galileos 锥形束 CT 和口内射线照相术检测咬合面龋。

Ex vivo comparison of Galileos cone beam CT and intraoral radiographs in detecting occlusal caries.

机构信息

Department of Oral Pathology VCU School of Dentistry, Richmond, VA, USA.

出版信息

Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012 Sep;41(6):489-93. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/57329547. Epub 2011 Dec 19.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of cone beam CT (CBCT) with intraoral radiographs for detection of occlusal caries.

METHODS

A set of 60 extracted teeth were imaged using a Sirona Galileos CBCT system (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany) and an intraoral Planmeca® system (Planmeca OY, Helsinki, Finland). Six observers looked at both modalities and used a five-point confidence scale to evaluate presence or absence of occlusal caries. Histology was used as the gold standard. Receiver operating characteristic analysis and weighted kappa statistics were used for statistical analysis. Differences in the area under the curve (AUC) values between observers and modalities were analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Differences in sensitivity and specificity were analysed using the Wilcoxon test. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability was assessed by weighted kappa scores.

RESULTS

The mean value and standard deviation of AUC was 0.719 ± 0.038 for CBCT and 0.649 ± 0.062 for the intraoral radiographs. The ANOVA results demonstrated that there was no significant difference between the modalities and the observers. The interobserver kappa for pairs of observers ranged from fair to substantial for bitewings (0.244-0.543) and CBCT (0.152-0.401). Four out of six observers reported higher sensitivity but lower specificity with CBCT. The Wilcoxon exact p-value showed no difference in sensitivity (0.175) or specificity (0.573) between the two modalities.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results we conclude that the Sirona CBCT unit cannot be used for the sole purpose of looking at occlusal caries.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较锥形束 CT(CBCT)与口内射线照相术检测咬合面龋的准确性。

方法

使用 Sirona Galileos CBCT 系统(德国 Sirona Dental Systems)和 Planmeca®口内系统(芬兰 Planmeca OY)对 60 颗离体牙进行成像。六位观察者观察两种模态,并使用五分制置信度量表评估是否存在咬合面龋。组织学作为金标准。使用接收者操作特征分析和加权kappa 统计进行统计分析。使用方差分析(ANOVA)分析观察者和模态之间曲线下面积(AUC)值的差异。使用 Wilcoxon 检验分析敏感性和特异性的差异。使用加权 kappa 评分评估观察者间和观察者内的可靠性。

结果

CBCT 的 AUC 值的平均值和标准差为 0.719 ± 0.038,口内射线照相术的 AUC 值的平均值和标准差为 0.649 ± 0.062。ANOVA 结果表明模态之间和观察者之间没有显著差异。咬合翼片的观察者间 kappa 值为 0.244-0.543,CBCT 的观察者间 kappa 值为 0.152-0.401,范围从公平到实质性。六位观察者中有四位报告 CBCT 的敏感性更高,但特异性更低。Wilcoxon 精确 p 值显示两种模态之间的敏感性(0.175)或特异性(0.573)无差异。

结论

根据结果,我们得出结论,Sirona CBCT 单位不能仅用于观察咬合面龋。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

2
What is cone-beam CT and how does it work?什么是锥形束CT,它是如何工作的?
Dent Clin North Am. 2008 Oct;52(4):707-30, v. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005.
5
In vitro assessment of cone beam local computed tomography for proximal caries detection.锥形束局部计算机断层扫描用于近端龋检测的体外评估
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007 Nov;104(5):699-704. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.08.032. Epub 2006 Dec 22.
6
Diagnostic tools for early caries detection.早期龋齿检测的诊断工具。
J Am Dent Assoc. 2006 Dec;137(12):1675-84; quiz 1730. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0113.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验