Clinical oral investigations · 2021
Influence of the image file format of digital periapical radiographs on the diagnosis of external and internal root resorptions.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Miranda-Viana Murilo, Madlum Daniela Verardi, Oliveira-Santos Nicolly, Gaêta-Araujo Hugo, Haiter-Neto Francisco, Oliveira Matheus L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of different image file formats of digital radiographic images on the diagnosis of external (ERR) and internal root resorption (IRR).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four human teeth were selected. For ERR, 20 teeth were used (10 control and 10 with simulated ERR), and for IRR, 14 teeth were used (before and after IRR simulation). Digital periapical radiographs were acquired using the Digora Toto system and exported in four different image file formats: TIFF, BMP, PNG, and JPEG, totaling 192 radiographs. Five examiners evaluated the images using the JPEGView software and scored the detection of ERR or IRR on a 5-point scale. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and the area under the ROC curve were obtained for the diagnosis of ERR and IRR in the different image file formats. Two-way ANOVA compared the diagnostic values between the file formats and the Kappa test assessed intra- and inter-examiner agreement. The significance level was set at 5% (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: The mean values of intra-examiner agreement were substantial (0.740) for ERR and almost perfect (0.836) for IRR and, inter-examiner was fair (0.263) and moderate (0.421), respectively. No statistically significant differences were found among the different file formats for the diagnostic values of ERR and IRR.
CONCLUSION: The file format of digital radiographs does not influence the diagnosis of ERR and IRR.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Digital radiographic images may be susceptible to computational factors; however, they can be stored in multiple file formats without affecting the diagnosis of dental root resorptions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four human teeth were selected. For ERR, 20 teeth were used (10 control and 10 with simulated ERR), and for IRR, 14 teeth were used (before and after IRR simulation). Digital periapical radiographs were acquired using the Digora Toto system and exported in four different image file formats: TIFF, BMP, PNG, and JPEG, totaling 192 radiographs. Five examiners evaluated the images using the JPEGView software and scored the detection of ERR or IRR on a 5-point scale. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and the area under the ROC curve were obtained for the diagnosis of ERR and IRR in the different image file formats. Two-way ANOVA compared the diagnostic values between the file formats and the Kappa test assessed intra- and inter-examiner agreement. The significance level was set at 5% (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: The mean values of intra-examiner agreement were substantial (0.740) for ERR and almost perfect (0.836) for IRR and, inter-examiner was fair (0.263) and moderate (0.421), respectively. No statistically significant differences were found among the different file formats for the diagnostic values of ERR and IRR.
CONCLUSION: The file format of digital radiographs does not influence the diagnosis of ERR and IRR.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Digital radiographic images may be susceptible to computational factors; however, they can be stored in multiple file formats without affecting the diagnosis of dental root resorptions.