In vitro comparison of two types of digital X-ray sensors for proximal caries detection validated by micro-computed tomography.
Radiography, Bitewing
Reproducibility of Results
Sensitivity and Specificity
X-Ray Microtomography
Journal
Dento maxillo facial radiology
ISSN: 0250-832X
Titre abrégé: Dentomaxillofac Radiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7609576
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Mar 2021
01 Mar 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
22
8
2020
medline:
24
2
2021
entrez:
22
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of two intraoral digital X-ray sensors-the charged-coupled device (CCD) and complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS)-for proximal caries detection in permanent molar and premolar teeth. Micro-CT served as the reference standard. 250 samples were mounted in three-dimensional (3D)-printed phantoms, and their proximal surfaces were evaluated by ICDAS criteria directly to create a balanced sample. Bitewing radiography was conducted using 3D-constructed X-ray phantoms with a CCD sensor at a 0.08 s and a CMOS sensor at 0.12 and 0.16 s exposure time. Two examiners determined the diagnostic decisions twice at appropriate intervals. Three diagnostic thresholds for sound surfaces and enamel and dentin caries were defined and presented in a cross-table. Sensitivity and specificity values and overall accuracy were calculated, and receiver operating curves were generated and compared. Reliability assessment was performed using linear weighted κ statistics. The overall accuracies between the reference standard and different sensors and exposure times were 63.1% (CCD), 67.1% (CMOS sensor at 0.12 s) and 70.7% (CMOS sensor at 0.08 s). High specificity but low sensitivity values were found for all examination conditions at all thresholds. The area under the curve comparison values revealed no significant difference between sensor types and exposure times. Linear-weighted κ analysis revealed almost perfect agreement for all assessments. No significant difference was found for diagnostic performance of proximal caries detection between the different sensors and exposure times. The increased exposure time did not lead to a significant diagnostic benefit.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32822231
doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20200338
pmc: PMC7923068
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
20200338Références
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012 Dec;41(8):686-90
pubmed: 22933536
Caries Res. 2018;52(5):406-419
pubmed: 29518788
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;41(1):54-66
pubmed: 25180412
J Oral Sci. 2017 Sep 14;59(3):315-322
pubmed: 28529280
Nat Methods. 2012 Jun 28;9(7):676-82
pubmed: 22743772
Oral Radiol. 2020 Jul;36(3):275-287
pubmed: 30484214
Braz Oral Res. 2015;29(1):S1806-83242015000100309
pubmed: 26892360
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006 May;35(3):133-8
pubmed: 16618843
Psychol Bull. 1968 Oct;70(4):213-20
pubmed: 19673146
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2019 Apr;20(2):73-78
pubmed: 30515661
Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 27;7(1):6680
pubmed: 28751671
Helv Odontol Acta. 1966 Apr;10(1):1-18
pubmed: 4379484
Acta Odontol Scand. 2010 Mar;68(2):65-79
pubmed: 20141362
J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Oct;10(10):YE01-YE06
pubmed: 27891446
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013 Jun;115(6):e55-61
pubmed: 23706925
Caries Res. 1992;26(4):305-9
pubmed: 1423448
BMC Oral Health. 2014 Dec 29;14:161
pubmed: 25547464
J Dent. 2012 Jan;40(1):35-40
pubmed: 21930181
Indian J Dent Res. 2010 Apr-Jun;21(2):266-9
pubmed: 20657099
Caries Res. 1984;18(2):141-8
pubmed: 6583007
J Dent. 2015 Aug;43(8):924-33
pubmed: 25724114
J Dent Res. 2000 Jun;79(6):1405-9
pubmed: 10890720