A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of in vivo and in vitro photostimulable phosphor digital images in the detection of occlusal caries lesions

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 17-22

  Kamburoglu K ^a,b   Senel B ^b   Yuksel S P ^a   Ozen T ^b  

^a ANKARA UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b GULHANE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENTAL CARIES; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MANDIBLE; MOLAR TOOTH; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; TIME; TOOTH EXTRACTION; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY; X RAY FILM;

DENTAL CARIES; HUMANS; MANDIBLE; MOLAR, THIRD; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; ROC CURVE; TIME FACTORS; TOOTH EXTRACTION; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 75149166088     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/91657756     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Ludlow JB, Mol A. Digital imaging. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ (eds). Oral radiology: Principles and interpretation (5th ed). St. Louis: Mosby, 2004, pp 225-244.
2. Hildebolt CF, Couture RA, Whiting BR. Dental photostimulable phosphor radiography. Dent Clin North Am 2000; 44: 273-297.
3. Ramamurthy R, Canning CF, Scheetz JP, Farman AG. Time and motion study: a comparison of two photostimulable phosphor imaging systems used in dentistry. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 315-318.
4. Farman AG, Farman TT. A comparison of 18 different x-ray detectors currently used in dentistry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005; 99: 485-489.
5. Hintze H, Wenzel A, Frydenberg M. Accuracy of caries detection with four storage phosphor systems and E speed radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002; 31: 170-175.
6. Kositbowornchai S, Basiw M, Promwang Y, Moragorn H, Sooksuntisakoonchai N. Accuracy of diagnosing occlusal caries using enhanced digital images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 236-240.
7. Kamburoǧlu K, Barenboim SF, Kaffe I. Comparison of conventional film with different digital and digitally filtered images in the detection of simulated internal resorption cavities: an ex vivo study in human cadaver jaws. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105: 790-797.
8. Kamburoǧlu K, Tsesis I, Kfir A, Kaffe I. Diagnosis of artificially induced external root resorption using conventional intraoral film radiography, CCD, and PSP: an ex vivo study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106: 885-891.
9. Tsesis I, Kamburoǧlu K, Katz A, Tamse A, Kaffe I, Kfir A. Comparison of digital with conventional radiography in detection of vertical root fractures in endodontically treated maxillary premolars: an ex vivo study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106: 124-128.
10. Kositbowornchai S, Nuansakul R, Sikram S, Sinahawattana S, Saengmontri S. Root fracture detection: a comparison of direct digital radiography with conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 106-109.
11. Wallace JA, Nair MK, Abomr D, Colaco MF, Kapa SF. A comparative evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy of film and digital sensors for detection of simulated periapical lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 92: 93-97.
12. Stavropoulos A, Wenzel A. Accuracy of cone beam dental CT, intraoral digital and conventional film radiography for the detection of periapical lesions. An ex vivo study in pig jaws. Clin Oral Invest 2007; 11: 101-106.
13. Hintze H, Wenzel A. Clinical and laboratory radiographic caries diagnosis. A study of the same teeth. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1996; 25: 115-118.
14. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd edn). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1981, pp 229-232.
15. Goldman M, Pearson AH, Darzenta N. Endodontic success: who is reading the radiograph? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1972; 33: 432-437.
16. Goldman M, Pearson AH, Darzenta N. Reliability of radiographic interpretations. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1974; 38: 287-293.
17. Wenzel A, Hintze H, Mikkelsen L, Mouyen F. Radiographic detection of occlusal caries in noncavitated teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1991; 72: 621-626.
18. Wenzel A, Larsen MJ, Fejerskov O. Detection of occlusal caries without cavitation by visual inspection, film radiographs, xeroradiographs, and digitized radiographs. Caries Res 1991; 25: 365-371.
19. Wenzel A, Fejerskov O. Validity of diagnosis of questionable caries lesions in occlusal surfaces of extracted third molars. Caries Res 1992; 26: 188-194.
20. Hintze H, Wenzel A, Jones C.In vitro comparison of D-and E-speed film radiography, RVG, and Visualix digital radiography for the detection of enamel approximal and dentinal occlusal caries lesions. Caries Res 1994; 28: 363-367.
21. Li G, Berkhout WE, Sanderink GC, Martins M, van der Stelt PF. Detection of in vitro proximal caries in storage phosphor plate radiographs scanned with different resolutions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 325-329.
22. Berkhout WE, Verheij JG, Syriopoulos K, Li G, Sanderink GC, van der Stelt PF. Detection of proximal caries with highresolution and standard resolution digital radiographic systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36: 204-210.
23. Wenzel A, Haiter-Neto F, Gotfredsen E. Influence of spatial resolution and bit depth on detection of small caries lesions with digital receptors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 103: 418-422.
24. Souza-Zaroni WC, Ciccone JC, Souza-Gabriel AE, Ramos RP, Corona SAM, Palma-Dibb RG. Validity and reproducibility of different combinations of methods for occlusal caries detection: an in vitro comparison. Caries Res 2006; 40: 194-201.
25. Ricketts DNJ, Ekstrand KR, Martignon S, Ellwood R, Alatsaris M, Nugent Z. Accuracy and reproducibility of conventional radiographic assessment and subtraction radiography in detecting demineralization in occlusal surfaces. Caries Res 2007; 41: 121-128.