Han Guo-song, Cheng Jun-ge, Zhang Zhi-ling, Li Gang, Zhang Zu-yan, Ma Xu-chen
Department of Oral Radiology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China.
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2012 Feb 18;44(1):70-4.
To compare the detection accuracy of occlusal caries in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images scanned with different scanning parameters.
Thirty-seven extracted human premolars and molars without restorations or obvious cavities were selected for this study. The teeth 3 or 4 as a group were mounted in 12 plaster blocks and scanned with DCT Pro (VATECH, Co., Ltd., Yongin-Si, S.Korea) at normal and high resolution settings and with ProMax 3D (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland) at low, normal and high resolution settings. In addition, the tooth blocks were imaged with the ProMax 3D at three different tube currents. Ten doctoral candidates of Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology evaluated all the images of the tooth blocks using a five-level confident scale. Actual presence and the extent of caries were established by histological examinations. The areas under the ROC curves (Az value) were analyzed.
Eleven (29.7%, 11/37) teeth were sound, 13 (35.1%, 13/37) had enamel caries and 13 (35.1%, 13/37) had dentine caries. There were no significant differences between normal resolution and high resolution for DCT Pro on the detection accuracy of occlusal (enamel+dentine) caries (0.698 ± 0.064 vs. 0.735 ± 0.044, P>0.05).No significant differences were found for ProMax 3D among low, normal and high resolution (0.700 ± 0.031 vs. 0.700±0.054 vs. 0.701 ± 0.041, P>0.05). For dentinal caries, there were no significant differences between CBCT images scanned with different resolutions for DCT Pro(0.776 ± 0.078 vs. 0.811 ± 0.047, P>0.05) or ProMax 3D (0.713 ± 0.039 vs. 0.685 ± 0.063 vs. 0.713 ± 0.040, P>0.05). No significant differences were found for enamel caries detection for DCT Pro (0.620 ± 0.068 vs. 0.659 ± 0.048, P>0.05)or ProMax 3D (0.686 ± 0.050 vs. 0.685 ± 0.063 vs. 0.689 ± 0.063, P>0.05). For ProMax 3D, there were no significant differences among different tube currents on the detection accuracy of occlusal caries (0.653 ± 0.065 vs. 0.700 ± 0.054 vs. 0.67 ± 0.062, P>0.05).
Different resolutions did not have an impact on the detection accuracy of occlusal caries. The tube currents for ProMax 3D did not show any effect on occlusal caries detection.
比较不同扫描参数下扫描的锥形束计算机断层扫描（CBCT）图像中咬合面龋的检测准确性。
本研究选取37颗无修复体或明显龋洞的拔除人类前磨牙和磨牙。将第3或第4颗牙齿作为一组，安装在12个石膏块中，使用DCT Pro（韩国龙仁市VATECH有限公司）在正常和高分辨率设置下进行扫描，并使用ProMax 3D（芬兰赫尔辛基Planmeca Oy公司）在低、正常和高分辨率设置下进行扫描。此外，将牙块在三种不同管电流下用ProMax 3D进行成像。北京大学口腔医学院和口腔医院的10名博士生使用五级可信度量表对牙块的所有图像进行评估。通过组织学检查确定龋病的实际存在情况和范围。分析ROC曲线下面积（Az值）。
11颗（29.7%，11/37）牙齿完好，13颗（35.1%，13/37）有釉质龋，13颗（35.1%，13/37）有牙本质龋。DCT Pro在正常分辨率和高分辨率下对咬合面（釉质+牙本质）龋的检测准确性无显著差异（0.698±0.064对0.735±0.044，P>0.05）。ProMax 3D在低、正常和高分辨率之间未发现显著差异（0.700±0.031对0.700±0.054对0.701±0.041，P>0.05）。对于牙本质龋，DCT Pro在不同分辨率下扫描的CBCT图像之间无显著差异（0.776±0.078对0.811±0.047，P>0.05）或ProMax 3D（0.713±0.039对0.685±0.063对0.713±0.040，P>0.05）。DCT Pro（0.620±0.068对0.659±0.048，P>0.05）或ProMax 3D（0.686±0.050对0.685±0.063对0.689±0.063，P>0.05）在釉质龋检测方面未发现显著差异。对于ProMax 3D，不同管电流在咬合面龋检测准确性方面无显著差异（0.653±0.065对0.700±0.054对0.67±0.062，P>0.05）。
不同分辨率对咬合面龋的检测准确性没有影响。ProMax 3D的管电流对咬合面龋检测没有显示出任何影响。
