Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2026
Diagnostic performance of a novel wireless direct-conversion intraoral sensor versus complementary metal-oxide semiconductor and photostimulable storage phosphor systems for proximal caries detection: an ex vivo study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Barros-Costa Matheus, Santaella Gustavo Machado, Hadid Gabriela Gavilan, Oliveira-Santos Christiano, Freitas Deborah Queiroz, Groppo Francisco Carlos, Scarfe William C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of a new wireless direct-conversion digital intraoral sensor to current indirect-conversion complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) and photostimulable storage phosphor (PSP) sensors for detecting proximal caries.
METHODS: The sample in this ex vivo study were 28 human premolars with 21 micro-CT verified non-cavitated proximal dental carious lesions. Images were obtained using 3 digital intraoral systems: a wireless direct-conversion sensor, a wired indirect-conversion CMOS sensor, and a PSP sensor. A custom phantom was constructed providing a limited dental arch segment comprising a molar, first premolar, and canine. The premolar was substituted and the phantom imaged using each intraoral system with (filtered) and without (raw) the application of a manufacturer-recommended enhancements, providing 168 images. Eight oral radiologists assessed the images using a 5-point scale. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) and compared across modalities using 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Tukey's test at an a priori level of significance of 0.05.
RESULTS: The AUC ranged from 0.58 to 0.73 (sensitivity range: 0.21-0.68, specificity range: 0.69-0.92). The wireless direct-conversion sensor (0.72 ± 0.06) showed diagnostic performance comparable to CMOS (0.72 ± 0.06) and superior to PSP (0.58 ± 0.07) for raw images (P < .001). The direct-conversion sensor without image enhancement (0.68 ± 0.18) demonstrated the highest sensitivity, whereas the PSP without image enhancement (0.21 ± 0.09) had the lowest sensitivity. Application of image enhancement improved PSP performance (0.48 ± 0.16), approximating that of the other systems.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this ex vivo study, the wireless direct-conversion and CMOS sensors demonstrated similar diagnostic performance, superior to PSP in unfiltered conditions. These findings should be interpreted in light of the ex vivo design and modest sample size.
METHODS: The sample in this ex vivo study were 28 human premolars with 21 micro-CT verified non-cavitated proximal dental carious lesions. Images were obtained using 3 digital intraoral systems: a wireless direct-conversion sensor, a wired indirect-conversion CMOS sensor, and a PSP sensor. A custom phantom was constructed providing a limited dental arch segment comprising a molar, first premolar, and canine. The premolar was substituted and the phantom imaged using each intraoral system with (filtered) and without (raw) the application of a manufacturer-recommended enhancements, providing 168 images. Eight oral radiologists assessed the images using a 5-point scale. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) and compared across modalities using 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Tukey's test at an a priori level of significance of 0.05.
RESULTS: The AUC ranged from 0.58 to 0.73 (sensitivity range: 0.21-0.68, specificity range: 0.69-0.92). The wireless direct-conversion sensor (0.72 ± 0.06) showed diagnostic performance comparable to CMOS (0.72 ± 0.06) and superior to PSP (0.58 ± 0.07) for raw images (P < .001). The direct-conversion sensor without image enhancement (0.68 ± 0.18) demonstrated the highest sensitivity, whereas the PSP without image enhancement (0.21 ± 0.09) had the lowest sensitivity. Application of image enhancement improved PSP performance (0.48 ± 0.16), approximating that of the other systems.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this ex vivo study, the wireless direct-conversion and CMOS sensors demonstrated similar diagnostic performance, superior to PSP in unfiltered conditions. These findings should be interpreted in light of the ex vivo design and modest sample size.