באופן מפתיע לא נמצא יתרון לבדיקה דיגיטלית אם כי המובהקות הסטטיסטית פחות ברורה בבדיקות דיגיטליות .
נראה שיותר בדיקות צריכות להעשות בתחום .
Oral and Maxillofacial RadiologyExtraoral imaging for proximal caries detection: Bitewings vs scanogram Emad A. Khan, BDS, MS, Dip ABOMR a * [MEDLINE LOOKUP] Study design Three modalities of Cranex TOME scanograms, x-ray film and DenOptix photostimulable phosphor plates with and without digital enhancement, were compared with Insight intraoral radiographs for proximal caries detection. Nine observers evaluated images of the proximal surfaces of 45 extracted posterior teeth. The presence or absence of caries was scored using a 5-point confidence scale. The ground truth was determined from histological sections. Responses were evaluated by repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) for areas under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (Az). Results Repeated measures ANOVA (at =0.05) demonstrated significant differences among modalities (P=.041). Paired t tests with Bonferroni correction demonstrated that Insight was superior to only unenhanced digital scanograms (P=.003). Mean Az scores (±SD) were 0.73 (±0.08) for Insight, 0.65 (±0.06) for screen/film scanogram, 0.64 (±0.04) for unenhanced digital scanogram, and 0.66 (±0.07) for enhanced digital scanogram. Conclusions The performances of film-based and enhanced digital scanograms were not statistically different from Insight film for proximal caries detection. Unenhanced digital scanograms exhibited a statistically significant lower diagnostic accuracy than Insight film.
Donald A. Tyndall, DDS, MSPH, PhD, Dip ABOMR b [MEDLINE LOOKUP]
Daniel Caplan, DDS, PhD c [MEDLINE LOOKUP]
Objective The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of 3 extraoral imaging modalities with an intraoral bitewing radiograph for proximal caries detection.
תגובות רוצה להצטרף לדיון?
יש להתחבר כדי להגיב.
התחבראין תגובות עדיין. היה הראשון להגיב!