Correlation of objective image quality and working length measurements in different CBCT machines: An ex vivo study.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 11 2020
10 11 2020
Historique:
received:
19
05
2020
accepted:
12
10
2020
entrez:
11
11
2020
pubmed:
12
11
2020
medline:
11
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To investigate potential correlations between objective CBCT image parameters and accuracy in endodontic working length determination ex vivo. Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and spatial resolution (SR) as fundamental objective image parameters were examined using specific phantoms in seven different CBCT machines. Seven experienced observers were instructed and calibrated. The order of the CBCTs was randomized for each observer and observation. To assess intra-operator reproducibility, the procedure was repeated within six weeks with a randomized order of CBCT images. Multivariate analysis (MANOVA) did not reveal any influence of the combined image quality factors CNR and SR on measurement accuracy. Inter-operator reproducibility as assessed between the two observations was poor, with a mean intra-class correlation (ICC) of 0.48 (95%-CI 0.38, 0.59) for observation No. 1. and 0.40 (95%-CI 0.30, 0.51) for observation No. 2. Intra-operator reproducibility pooled over all observers between both observations was only moderate, with a mean ICC of 0.58 (95%-CI 0.52 to 0.64). Within the limitations of the study, objective image quality measures and exposure parameters seem not to have a significant influence on accuracy in determining endodontic root canal lengths in CBCT scans. The main factor of variance is the observer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33173072
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76424-4
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-76424-4
pmc: PMC7655868
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
19414Références
J Endod. 2018 Dec;44(12):1872-1877
pubmed: 30390968
Eur Endod J. 2018 Nov 13;4(1):28-32
pubmed: 32161883
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Int Endod J. 2014 Jul;47(7):698-703
pubmed: 24134733
J Endod. 1990 Oct;16(10):498-504
pubmed: 2084204
Int Endod J. 2015 Jan;48(1):3-15
pubmed: 24697513
Med Phys. 1986 Mar-Apr;13(2):254-6
pubmed: 3702823
Radiology. 2010 Oct;257(1):14-7
pubmed: 20851935
J Endod. 2011 Aug;37(8):1046-51
pubmed: 21763892
Int Endod J. 1984 Oct;17(4):192-8
pubmed: 6593303
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2015 Mar;119(3):357-65
pubmed: 25592866
Int J Oral Sci. 2017 Sep;9(3):151-157
pubmed: 28884743
J Am Coll Radiol. 2004 Feb;1(2):127-32
pubmed: 17411540
J Endod. 2017 Jan;43(1):152-156
pubmed: 27986097
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2011 Nov 15;12(4):3478
pubmed: 22089004
Phys Med. 2017 Jul;39:67-72
pubmed: 28602688
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Feb;81(2):267-71
pubmed: 21196094
J Endod. 2011 Jul;37(7):919-21
pubmed: 21689544
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(1):20140238
pubmed: 25315442
Med Phys. 2019 Oct;46(10):4470-4480
pubmed: 31339580
J Endod. 2019 May;45(5):619-622
pubmed: 30926161
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2016 Apr;121(4):425-33
pubmed: 26972541
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2015 Oct;120(4):508-12
pubmed: 26346911
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011 Jul;40(5):265-73
pubmed: 21697151
J Endod. 2012 Jul;38(7):884-8
pubmed: 22703648
Int Endod J. 1998 Nov;31(6):394-409
pubmed: 15551607
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019 May;48(4):20180350
pubmed: 30707644
Int Endod J. 2004 Jul;37(7):425-37
pubmed: 15189431
Br J Radiol. 1997 Nov;70(839):1085-98
pubmed: 9536897