Suppr超能文献

两种牙槽骨丧失评估技术的比较研究:一项初步研究。

Comparative study between two techniques for alveolar bone loss assessment: A pilot study.

作者信息

Lira-Júnior Ronaldo, Freires Irlan de Almeida, de Oliveira Isabelle Linsmacêdo, da Silva Ennyo Sobral Crispim, da Silva Severinocelestino, de Brito Roberto Lira

机构信息

Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

出版信息

J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2013 Jan;17(1):87-90. doi: 10.4103/0972-124X.107481.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a comparative study between two techniques for assessment of alveolar bone loss.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Absolute and relative techniques were evaluated. The sample consisted of 16 radiographs supposed to meet a single criterion: The reference points applied (Cementum-enamel junction (CEJ) alveolar bone crest and root apex) should be visible. Bone height was measured in the selected radiographs as the percentage of root length through both techniques. Data were submitted to the Statistical Package for Social Science software. Results obtained by both methods were converted into bone loss index values and then categorized. Sensitivity and specificity of the relative technique, compared to the absolute technique, were calculated. Wilcoxon test and the Bland and Altman's method were employed for comparisons. Significance level was set at 5%.

RESULTS

For the absolute and relative techniques, means of bone loss index were respectively of 4.81 (±2.25) and 4.75 (±1.80). Bone loss index ≥6 (alveolar bone loss ≥50%) was found in 5 (31.2%) teeth, in the absolute technique, and in 4 (25%) teeth, according to the relative technique. There was no statistically significant difference between both methods (P>0.05). According to the Bland and Altman's method, it was verified a bias of 0.06, and limits of upper and lower agreement of, respectively, 1.58 and -1.45. Sensitivity of 0.8 and specificity of 1 were found for the relative technique compared to the absolute one.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between the techniques evaluated, and the relative technique was found to be reliable for measuring alveolar bone loss.

摘要

目的

对两种评估牙槽骨吸收的技术进行比较研究。

材料与方法

评估绝对法和相对法。样本包括16张根尖片,这些根尖片需符合单一标准:应用的参考点(牙骨质-釉质界(CEJ)、牙槽嵴顶和根尖)应清晰可见。通过两种技术在选定的根尖片中测量骨高度,以根长的百分比表示。数据提交至社会科学统计软件包。将两种方法获得的结果转换为骨吸收指数值,然后进行分类。计算相对法与绝对法相比的敏感度和特异度。采用Wilcoxon检验和Bland-Altman方法进行比较。显著性水平设定为5%。

结果

绝对法和相对法的骨吸收指数平均值分别为4.81(±2.25)和4.75(±1.80)。绝对法中,5颗牙(31.2%)骨吸收指数≥6(牙槽骨吸收≥50%);相对法中,4颗牙(25%)骨吸收指数≥6。两种方法之间无统计学显著差异(P>0.05)。根据Bland-Altman方法,验证偏差为0.06,一致性上限和下限分别为1.58和 -1.45。相对法与绝对法相比,敏感度为0.8,特异度为1。

结论

所评估的技术之间无显著差异,且相对法在测量牙槽骨吸收方面是可靠的。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6866/3636952/57314cce4dd1/JISP-17-87-g001.jpg

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