Clinical oral investigations · 2024
Is cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) an alternative to plain radiography in assessments of dental disease? A study of method agreement in a medically compromised patient population.
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.
Lindfors Ninita, Ekestubbe Annika, Frisk Fredrik, Lund Henrik
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Poor oral health and dental infections can jeopardize medical treatment and be life-threatening. Due to this, patients with head and neck malignancies, generalized tumor spread, organ transplant, or severe infection are referred for a clinical oral and radiographic examination. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic agreement of three radiographic modalities: intraoral radiographs (IO), panoramic radiographs (PX), and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for diagnosis of dental diseases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred patients were examined with IO, PX, and CBCT. Periapical lesions, marginal bone level, and caries lesions were diagnosed separately by four oral radiologists. All observers also assessed six teeth in 30 randomly selected patients at two different occasions. Kappa values and percent agreement were calculated.
RESULTS: The highest Kappa value and percent agreement were for diagnosing periapical lesions (0.76, 97.7%), and for the assessment of marginal bone level, it varied between 0.58 and 0.60 (87.8-89.3%). In CBCT, only 44.4% of all teeth were assessable for caries (Kappa 0.68, 93.4%). The intra-observer agreement, for all modalities and diagnoses, showed Kappa values between 0.5 and 0.93 and inter-observer agreement varied from 0.51 to 0.87.
CONCLUSIONS: CBCT was an alternative to IO in diagnosing periapical lesions. Both modalities found the same healthy teeth in 93.8%. All modalities were performed equally regarding marginal bone level. In caries diagnosis, artifacts were the major cause of fallout for CBCT.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Intraoral radiography is the first-hand choice for diagnosing dental disease. For some rare cases where intraoral imaging is not possible, a dedicated panoramic image and/or CBCT examination is an alternative.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred patients were examined with IO, PX, and CBCT. Periapical lesions, marginal bone level, and caries lesions were diagnosed separately by four oral radiologists. All observers also assessed six teeth in 30 randomly selected patients at two different occasions. Kappa values and percent agreement were calculated.
RESULTS: The highest Kappa value and percent agreement were for diagnosing periapical lesions (0.76, 97.7%), and for the assessment of marginal bone level, it varied between 0.58 and 0.60 (87.8-89.3%). In CBCT, only 44.4% of all teeth were assessable for caries (Kappa 0.68, 93.4%). The intra-observer agreement, for all modalities and diagnoses, showed Kappa values between 0.5 and 0.93 and inter-observer agreement varied from 0.51 to 0.87.
CONCLUSIONS: CBCT was an alternative to IO in diagnosing periapical lesions. Both modalities found the same healthy teeth in 93.8%. All modalities were performed equally regarding marginal bone level. In caries diagnosis, artifacts were the major cause of fallout for CBCT.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Intraoral radiography is the first-hand choice for diagnosing dental disease. For some rare cases where intraoral imaging is not possible, a dedicated panoramic image and/or CBCT examination is an alternative.