International endodontic journal · 2015
Digital radiographs displayed on different devices: effect on the detection of vertical root fractures.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vasconcelos T V, Santaella G M, Nascimento H A R, Rovaris K, Ambrosano G M B, Freitas D Q
Аннотация
AIM: To evaluate whether the type of display device affects the detection of vertical root fractures (VRFs) on digital radiographs in unfilled canals and canals with fibreglass posts.
METHODOLOGY: Forty single-rooted human teeth were decoronated, and the root canals were prepared. The teeth were divided into 2 groups: controls (20 teeth) and with VRF (20 teeth). The VRFs were induced using an universal testing machine. Periapical radiographs of all teeth, with canal unfilled or with a fibreglass post, were obtained using the parallel technique in 3 directions (ortho-, mesio- and distoradial) on storage phosphor plates (VistaScan®). All images were evaluated and re-evaluated after 30 days by 3 examiners on a 5-point scale using 4 different devices (notebook display with full high definition resolution, desktop display with a standard resolution, 8-inch Android(™) tablet with high definition resolution and a 9.7-inch iPad® tablet with Retina resolution). Areas under ROC curves, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy values were compared by anova.
RESULTS: The weighted kappa values for intra- and interobserver reproducibility were 0.55-0.88 and 0.31-0.65, respectively. There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in relation to the area under the ROC curve, specificity and sensitivity when unfilled canals were compared with canals with a fibreglass post; however, no difference was observed for the different devices studied.
CONCLUSIONS: The type of display device did not affect the detection of VRFs. Thus, the detection of VRFs can be performed using different screen sizes and resolutions.
METHODOLOGY: Forty single-rooted human teeth were decoronated, and the root canals were prepared. The teeth were divided into 2 groups: controls (20 teeth) and with VRF (20 teeth). The VRFs were induced using an universal testing machine. Periapical radiographs of all teeth, with canal unfilled or with a fibreglass post, were obtained using the parallel technique in 3 directions (ortho-, mesio- and distoradial) on storage phosphor plates (VistaScan®). All images were evaluated and re-evaluated after 30 days by 3 examiners on a 5-point scale using 4 different devices (notebook display with full high definition resolution, desktop display with a standard resolution, 8-inch Android(™) tablet with high definition resolution and a 9.7-inch iPad® tablet with Retina resolution). Areas under ROC curves, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy values were compared by anova.
RESULTS: The weighted kappa values for intra- and interobserver reproducibility were 0.55-0.88 and 0.31-0.65, respectively. There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in relation to the area under the ROC curve, specificity and sensitivity when unfilled canals were compared with canals with a fibreglass post; however, no difference was observed for the different devices studied.
CONCLUSIONS: The type of display device did not affect the detection of VRFs. Thus, the detection of VRFs can be performed using different screen sizes and resolutions.