Impact of using bitewing radiographs alone or in combination with clinical information on treatment decisions.

Brazilian dental journal Pub Date : 2024-12-16 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1590/0103-644020246005
Gabriele Soares Maydana, Vitor Henrique Digmayer Romero, Cacia Signori, Juliana Lays Stolfo Uehara, Françoise Hélène van de Sande, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci, Anelise Fernandes Montagner
{"title":"Impact of using bitewing radiographs alone or in combination with clinical information on treatment decisions.","authors":"Gabriele Soares Maydana, Vitor Henrique Digmayer Romero, Cacia Signori, Juliana Lays Stolfo Uehara, Françoise Hélène van de Sande, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci, Anelise Fernandes Montagner","doi":"10.1590/0103-644020246005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The combination of different methods has been advocated to increase sensitivity in detecting secondary caries lesions. This cross-sectional study compared the detection of caries lesions around posterior restorations and treatment decisions using bitewing radiographs alone or in combination with clinical information from patient records. The radiographs (n = 212) were randomly distributed into two sequences for assessment across two phases, with a wash-out period of two weeks. In the first phase (X-ray group), the radiographic images were evaluated without clinical information; in the second phase (X-ray/CARS group), the radiographic images were assessed in conjunction with the CARS score (Caries Associated with Restorations or Sealants) and lesion activity. A radiographic classification system for carious lesions around restorations was adapted to classify the bitewing radiographs included in this study. Evaluations were conducted in consensus by a panel of specialists, focusing on the detection of caries around restorations and subsequent treatment decisions. A chi-squared test was used to compare treatment decisions between the groups, and Cohen's kappa coefficient was employed to assess the agreement of scores. The results showed a significant difference in the distribution of decisions regarding the need for restorative intervention between the groups (p < 0.001), with the X-ray/CARS group leading to more decisions favoring restorative intervention. There was a moderate to good agreement of scores (κ = 0.749). The combination of clinical and radiographic information was found to influence the treatment decision-making process by increasing the likelihood of opting for restorative intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":101363,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian dental journal","volume":"35 ","pages":"e246005"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian dental journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-644020246005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The combination of different methods has been advocated to increase sensitivity in detecting secondary caries lesions. This cross-sectional study compared the detection of caries lesions around posterior restorations and treatment decisions using bitewing radiographs alone or in combination with clinical information from patient records. The radiographs (n = 212) were randomly distributed into two sequences for assessment across two phases, with a wash-out period of two weeks. In the first phase (X-ray group), the radiographic images were evaluated without clinical information; in the second phase (X-ray/CARS group), the radiographic images were assessed in conjunction with the CARS score (Caries Associated with Restorations or Sealants) and lesion activity. A radiographic classification system for carious lesions around restorations was adapted to classify the bitewing radiographs included in this study. Evaluations were conducted in consensus by a panel of specialists, focusing on the detection of caries around restorations and subsequent treatment decisions. A chi-squared test was used to compare treatment decisions between the groups, and Cohen's kappa coefficient was employed to assess the agreement of scores. The results showed a significant difference in the distribution of decisions regarding the need for restorative intervention between the groups (p < 0.001), with the X-ray/CARS group leading to more decisions favoring restorative intervention. There was a moderate to good agreement of scores (κ = 0.749). The combination of clinical and radiographic information was found to influence the treatment decision-making process by increasing the likelihood of opting for restorative intervention.

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
有人主张将不同的方法结合起来,以提高检测继发龋病变的灵敏度。这项横断面研究比较了单独使用咬翼X光片或结合患者记录中的临床信息使用咬翼X光片对后牙修复体周围龋损的检测和治疗决策。射线照片(n = 212)被随机分为两个序列,在两个阶段进行评估,冲洗期为两周。在第一阶段(X 光组),在不提供临床信息的情况下对放射影像进行评估;在第二阶段(X 光/CARS 组),放射影像与 CARS 评分(与修复体或封闭剂相关的龋齿)和病变活动性一起进行评估。针对修复体周围的龋病,本研究采用了一套放射线分类系统对咬翼放射线照片进行分类。专家小组在达成共识的基础上进行了评估,重点是检测修复体周围的龋病以及随后的治疗决策。采用卡方检验比较各组的治疗决定,并采用科恩卡方系数评估评分的一致性。结果显示,各组之间关于是否需要修复干预的决策分布存在明显差异(p < 0.001),X 光/CARS 组倾向于修复干预的决策更多。两组的评分具有中度到良好的一致性(κ = 0.749)。研究发现,临床和放射信息的结合会影响治疗决策过程,增加选择修复干预的可能性。
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
Biological Properties of Bioceramic Sealers on Osteoblastic Cells: A Comparative Study. Dimethyl sulfoxide affects the viability and mineralization activity of apical papilla cells in vitro. Diversity of Endodontic Enterococcus faecalis from Brazil with a High Occurrence of the ST 397 Clone. Comparative finite element analyses of stress exerted on the dentin by intraradicular posts. Does the pH of the grape seed extract interfere in the biomodification capacity of dentin collagen?
×
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