Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography, clinical and surgical analysis for detection of maxillary molar furcation.

Paula Rd Oliveira, Thiago O Sousa, José Valladares-Neto, João Antônio C Souza, Maria Ag Silva, Virgílio M Roriz
{"title":"Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography, clinical and surgical analysis for detection of maxillary molar furcation.","authors":"Paula Rd Oliveira,&nbsp;Thiago O Sousa,&nbsp;José Valladares-Neto,&nbsp;João Antônio C Souza,&nbsp;Maria Ag Silva,&nbsp;Virgílio M Roriz","doi":"10.54589/aol.34/3/240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to compare the performance of conebeam computed tomography (CBCT), clinical and surgical probing in assessing maxillary molar furcation involvement (FI). Furcation defects (n= 120) were assessed through CBCT, clinical and intra-surgical evaluation (ISE). Furcation Involvement, vertical and horizontal bone loss were assessed through clinical probing, CBCT and probing during ISE. Three trained radiologists evaluated CBCT images and intra- and interobserver agreement were calculated by Kappa test and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). McNemar and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare clinical probing, ISE and CBCT. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated to detect FI. Clinical findings showed 28 sites with Degree I, 25 sites with Degree II, and 8 sites with Degree III. Good intra- (k=1.00) and interobserver agreement (k=0.773) were observed. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement for horizontal bone loss were moderate, k=0.485 and k=0.549, respectively. Intra-surgical findings showed Degree I at 21 sites, and Degree II and Degree III FI at fifteen sites each. Clinical evaluation showed 75% agreement with ISE and 78% with CBCT. Accuracy for clinical detection of FI was 75%, while for CBCT evaluation ranged from 72.5% to 77.5%, considering the 3 observers. Significant differences were found at distal sites using CBCT (p<0.05). Clinical evaluation and CBCT showed similar results for the presence or absence of FI. Concerning horizontal and vertical bone loss, CBCT was not considered a precise examination method for incipient bone defects.","PeriodicalId":7033,"journal":{"name":"Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/7d/36/1852-4834-34-3-240.PMC10315097.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54589/aol.34/3/240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to compare the performance of conebeam computed tomography (CBCT), clinical and surgical probing in assessing maxillary molar furcation involvement (FI). Furcation defects (n= 120) were assessed through CBCT, clinical and intra-surgical evaluation (ISE). Furcation Involvement, vertical and horizontal bone loss were assessed through clinical probing, CBCT and probing during ISE. Three trained radiologists evaluated CBCT images and intra- and interobserver agreement were calculated by Kappa test and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). McNemar and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare clinical probing, ISE and CBCT. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated to detect FI. Clinical findings showed 28 sites with Degree I, 25 sites with Degree II, and 8 sites with Degree III. Good intra- (k=1.00) and interobserver agreement (k=0.773) were observed. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement for horizontal bone loss were moderate, k=0.485 and k=0.549, respectively. Intra-surgical findings showed Degree I at 21 sites, and Degree II and Degree III FI at fifteen sites each. Clinical evaluation showed 75% agreement with ISE and 78% with CBCT. Accuracy for clinical detection of FI was 75%, while for CBCT evaluation ranged from 72.5% to 77.5%, considering the 3 observers. Significant differences were found at distal sites using CBCT (p<0.05). Clinical evaluation and CBCT showed similar results for the presence or absence of FI. Concerning horizontal and vertical bone loss, CBCT was not considered a precise examination method for incipient bone defects.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
锥束计算机断层扫描与临床及外科分析对上颌磨牙分叉检测的比较。
本研究的目的是比较锥束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)、临床和外科探查在评估上颌磨牙分叉受累(FI)方面的表现。通过CBCT、临床和术中评估(ISE)评估功能缺陷(n= 120)。在ISE期间,通过临床探查、CBCT和探查评估分叉受累情况、垂直和水平骨丢失情况。三名训练有素的放射科医生评估CBCT图像,并通过Kappa检验和类内相关系数(ICC)计算观察者内部和观察者之间的一致性。McNemar和Wilcoxon试验用于比较临床探查、ISE和CBCT。计算准确性、敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值来检测FI。临床表现为I级28个位点,II级25个位点,III级8个位点。观察到良好的内部一致性(k=1.00)和观察者间一致性(k=0.773)。观察者内部和观察者之间对水平骨丢失的一致性为中等,k=0.485和k=0.549。术中表现为I级21个部位,II级和III级FI各15个部位。临床评价与ISE的一致性为75%,与CBCT的一致性为78%。考虑到3名观察者,临床检测FI的准确率为75%,而CBCT评估的准确率为72.5%至77.5%。CBCT在远端部位发现显著差异(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Update on the treatment of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced buccal mucositis: a systematic review. Clinical and microbiological assessment in a subpopulation of young Argentine patients with severe periodontitis. Postoperative pain after third molar extraction surgery in patients with and without bruxism: an observational study. Effect of photopolymerization time on the microhardness of resin cement beneath feldspathic ceramic. The potential of salivary albumin to degrade composite resin.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1