锥形束计算机断层与数字根尖周x线摄影对根尖牙周炎的解剖及治疗相关诊断参数比较。

IF 1 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research Pub Date : 2020-06-30 eCollection Date: 2020-04-01 DOI:10.5037/jomr.2020.11204
Jelena Gudac, Kristina Hellén-Halme, Tadas Venskutonis, Algirdas Puisys, Vita Machiulskiene
{"title":"锥形束计算机断层与数字根尖周x线摄影对根尖牙周炎的解剖及治疗相关诊断参数比较。","authors":"Jelena Gudac,&nbsp;Kristina Hellén-Halme,&nbsp;Tadas Venskutonis,&nbsp;Algirdas Puisys,&nbsp;Vita Machiulskiene","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2020.11204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare selected anatomical and treatment-related diagnostic parameters estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and by digital periapical radiography in teeth with apical periodontitis, and to evaluate reliability of different examiners in interpretation of images obtained by both methods.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Teeth with apical periodontitis were evaluated independently by 2 endodontists and 1 radiologist based on 128 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 162 digital periapical radiography (DPR) images. Anatomical (size, relation with root, location of periapical radiolucency) and treatment-related (canal obturation length, homogeneity, coronal seal) parameters were assessed. Fleiss kappa reflected inter-observer agreement while intra-examiner agreement was estimated by Cohen's kappa. McNemar and McNemar-Bowker tests served for evaluation of differences between CBCT- and DPR-based estimates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cohen's kappa ranged from 0.62 to 1 for all examiners. Fleiss kappa values were nearly perfect for majority of parameters. Diagnostic discrepancy between methods was found for size of radiolucency that in 15 - 17% cases was larger, and in 25 - 28% smaller in DPR than in CBCT images. DPR revealed 20% of root canals scored as non-obturated while in CBCT - obturation present. Canal obturation was rated as homogenous by CBCT, while absent or non-homogenous by DPR, in 17 - 23%, and 11 - 14% of cases, respectively. Radiologist detected more root perforations in CBCT than in DPR images.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Good intra- and inter-examiner agreement for anatomical and treatment-related diagnostic parameters was achieved using cone-beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiography methods and demonstrated similar diagnostic capability, although variation regarding root perforations and canal obturation quality was observed.</p>","PeriodicalId":53254,"journal":{"name":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e6/80/jomr-11-e4.PMC7393929.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Selected Anatomical and Treatment-related Diagnostic Parameters Estimated by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Digital Periapical Radiography in Teeth with Apical Periodontitis.\",\"authors\":\"Jelena Gudac,&nbsp;Kristina Hellén-Halme,&nbsp;Tadas Venskutonis,&nbsp;Algirdas Puisys,&nbsp;Vita Machiulskiene\",\"doi\":\"10.5037/jomr.2020.11204\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare selected anatomical and treatment-related diagnostic parameters estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and by digital periapical radiography in teeth with apical periodontitis, and to evaluate reliability of different examiners in interpretation of images obtained by both methods.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Teeth with apical periodontitis were evaluated independently by 2 endodontists and 1 radiologist based on 128 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 162 digital periapical radiography (DPR) images. Anatomical (size, relation with root, location of periapical radiolucency) and treatment-related (canal obturation length, homogeneity, coronal seal) parameters were assessed. Fleiss kappa reflected inter-observer agreement while intra-examiner agreement was estimated by Cohen's kappa. McNemar and McNemar-Bowker tests served for evaluation of differences between CBCT- and DPR-based estimates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cohen's kappa ranged from 0.62 to 1 for all examiners. Fleiss kappa values were nearly perfect for majority of parameters. Diagnostic discrepancy between methods was found for size of radiolucency that in 15 - 17% cases was larger, and in 25 - 28% smaller in DPR than in CBCT images. DPR revealed 20% of root canals scored as non-obturated while in CBCT - obturation present. Canal obturation was rated as homogenous by CBCT, while absent or non-homogenous by DPR, in 17 - 23%, and 11 - 14% of cases, respectively. Radiologist detected more root perforations in CBCT than in DPR images.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Good intra- and inter-examiner agreement for anatomical and treatment-related diagnostic parameters was achieved using cone-beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiography methods and demonstrated similar diagnostic capability, although variation regarding root perforations and canal obturation quality was observed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e6/80/jomr-11-e4.PMC7393929.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2020.11204\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2020.11204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

目的:比较锥形束计算机断层扫描和数字根尖周x线摄影对根尖牙炎患者的解剖和治疗相关诊断参数,并评估不同检查者对两种方法获得的图像的解释可靠性。材料和方法:由2名牙髓科医生和1名放射科医生根据128张锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)和162张数字根尖周x线摄影(DPR)图像独立评估根尖牙周炎患者的牙齿。解剖(大小,与根的关系,根尖周放射率的位置)和治疗相关(管封闭长度,均匀性,冠状密封)参数进行评估。Fleiss kappa反映了观察者之间的一致,而Cohen的kappa则估计了观察者内部的一致。McNemar和McNemar- bowker试验用于评估基于CBCT和基于pr的估计之间的差异。结果:所有考官的Cohen’s kappa范围为0.62 ~ 1。大多数参数的Fleiss kappa值几乎是完美的。两种诊断方法在放射光度大小上存在差异,15 - 17%的DPR病例比CBCT图像大,25 - 28%的DPR病例比CBCT图像小。DPR显示20%的根管评分为未封闭,而CBCT -封闭存在。CBCT显示管状封堵均匀,DPR显示管状封堵缺失或不均匀,分别为17 - 23%和11 - 14%。放射科医生在CBCT上比在DPR图像上检测到更多的牙根穿孔。结论:使用锥形束计算机断层扫描和数字根尖周放射学方法,在解剖和治疗相关的诊断参数上取得了良好的检查员内部和检查员之间的一致性,并表现出类似的诊断能力,尽管观察到根穿孔和根管封闭质量存在差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of Selected Anatomical and Treatment-related Diagnostic Parameters Estimated by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Digital Periapical Radiography in Teeth with Apical Periodontitis.

Objectives: To compare selected anatomical and treatment-related diagnostic parameters estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and by digital periapical radiography in teeth with apical periodontitis, and to evaluate reliability of different examiners in interpretation of images obtained by both methods.

Material and methods: Teeth with apical periodontitis were evaluated independently by 2 endodontists and 1 radiologist based on 128 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 162 digital periapical radiography (DPR) images. Anatomical (size, relation with root, location of periapical radiolucency) and treatment-related (canal obturation length, homogeneity, coronal seal) parameters were assessed. Fleiss kappa reflected inter-observer agreement while intra-examiner agreement was estimated by Cohen's kappa. McNemar and McNemar-Bowker tests served for evaluation of differences between CBCT- and DPR-based estimates.

Results: Cohen's kappa ranged from 0.62 to 1 for all examiners. Fleiss kappa values were nearly perfect for majority of parameters. Diagnostic discrepancy between methods was found for size of radiolucency that in 15 - 17% cases was larger, and in 25 - 28% smaller in DPR than in CBCT images. DPR revealed 20% of root canals scored as non-obturated while in CBCT - obturation present. Canal obturation was rated as homogenous by CBCT, while absent or non-homogenous by DPR, in 17 - 23%, and 11 - 14% of cases, respectively. Radiologist detected more root perforations in CBCT than in DPR images.

Conclusions: Good intra- and inter-examiner agreement for anatomical and treatment-related diagnostic parameters was achieved using cone-beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiography methods and demonstrated similar diagnostic capability, although variation regarding root perforations and canal obturation quality was observed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Outcome Difference between Short and Longer Dental Implants Placed Simultaneously with Alveolar Bone Augmentation: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Use of Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Sinus Floor Augmentation Surgery: a Systematic Review. Attitudes of Oral Surgeons and Periodontists towards Immediate Dental Implant Placement. Can CAPRIN-1 Be Responsible for the Recurrence Potential of Odontogenic Keratocysts? Dental Implant Placement in the Maxilla Following Ridge Augmentation with Free Iliac Bone Graft and Oral Rehabilitation with Fixed Prosthesis: a Three-Year Follow-Up Study.
×
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