Cargando…
Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of direct digital radiography system, filtered images, and subtraction radiography
BACKGROUND: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of three different imaging systems: Direct digital radiography system (DDR-CMOS), four types of filtered images, and a priori and a posteriori registration of digital subtraction radiography (DSR) in the diagnosis of proximal defects. MATERIALS AND METH...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3793555/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24124300 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.118391 |
_version_ | 1782287073713061888 |
---|---|
author | Takeshita, Wilton Mitsunari Vessoni Iwaki, Lilian Cristina Da Silva, Mariliani Chicarelli Filho, Liogi Iwaki Queiroz, Alfredo De Franco Geron, Lucas Bachegas Gomes |
author_facet | Takeshita, Wilton Mitsunari Vessoni Iwaki, Lilian Cristina Da Silva, Mariliani Chicarelli Filho, Liogi Iwaki Queiroz, Alfredo De Franco Geron, Lucas Bachegas Gomes |
author_sort | Takeshita, Wilton Mitsunari |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of three different imaging systems: Direct digital radiography system (DDR-CMOS), four types of filtered images, and a priori and a posteriori registration of digital subtraction radiography (DSR) in the diagnosis of proximal defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The teeth were arranged in pairs in 10 blocks of vinyl polysiloxane, and proximal defects were performed with drills of 0.25, 0.5, and 1 mm diameter. Kodak RVG 6100 sensor was used to capture the images. A posteriori DSR registrations were done with Regeemy 0.2.43 and subtraction with Image Tool 3.0. Filtered images were obtained with Kodak Dental Imaging 6.1 software. Images (n = 360) were evaluated by three raters, all experts in dental radiology. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of the area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve (Az) were higher for DSR images with all three drills (Az = 0.896, 0.979, and 1.000 for drills 0.25, 0.5, and 1 mm, respectively). The highest values were found for 1-mm drills and the lowest for 0.25-mm drills, with negative filter having the lowest values of all (Az = 0.631). CONCLUSION: The best method of diagnosis was by using a DSR. The negative filter obtained the worst results. Larger drills showed the highest sensitivity and specificity values of the area under the ROC curve. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3793555 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-37935552013-10-11 Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of direct digital radiography system, filtered images, and subtraction radiography Takeshita, Wilton Mitsunari Vessoni Iwaki, Lilian Cristina Da Silva, Mariliani Chicarelli Filho, Liogi Iwaki Queiroz, Alfredo De Franco Geron, Lucas Bachegas Gomes Contemp Clin Dent Original Article BACKGROUND: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of three different imaging systems: Direct digital radiography system (DDR-CMOS), four types of filtered images, and a priori and a posteriori registration of digital subtraction radiography (DSR) in the diagnosis of proximal defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The teeth were arranged in pairs in 10 blocks of vinyl polysiloxane, and proximal defects were performed with drills of 0.25, 0.5, and 1 mm diameter. Kodak RVG 6100 sensor was used to capture the images. A posteriori DSR registrations were done with Regeemy 0.2.43 and subtraction with Image Tool 3.0. Filtered images were obtained with Kodak Dental Imaging 6.1 software. Images (n = 360) were evaluated by three raters, all experts in dental radiology. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of the area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve (Az) were higher for DSR images with all three drills (Az = 0.896, 0.979, and 1.000 for drills 0.25, 0.5, and 1 mm, respectively). The highest values were found for 1-mm drills and the lowest for 0.25-mm drills, with negative filter having the lowest values of all (Az = 0.631). CONCLUSION: The best method of diagnosis was by using a DSR. The negative filter obtained the worst results. Larger drills showed the highest sensitivity and specificity values of the area under the ROC curve. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013 /pmc/articles/PMC3793555/ /pubmed/24124300 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.118391 Text en Copyright: © Contemporary Clinical Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Takeshita, Wilton Mitsunari Vessoni Iwaki, Lilian Cristina Da Silva, Mariliani Chicarelli Filho, Liogi Iwaki Queiroz, Alfredo De Franco Geron, Lucas Bachegas Gomes Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of direct digital radiography system, filtered images, and subtraction radiography |
title | Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of direct digital radiography system, filtered images, and subtraction radiography |
title_full | Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of direct digital radiography system, filtered images, and subtraction radiography |
title_fullStr | Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of direct digital radiography system, filtered images, and subtraction radiography |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of direct digital radiography system, filtered images, and subtraction radiography |
title_short | Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of direct digital radiography system, filtered images, and subtraction radiography |
title_sort | comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of direct digital radiography system, filtered images, and subtraction radiography |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3793555/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24124300 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.118391 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT takeshitawiltonmitsunari comparisonofthediagnosticaccuracyofdirectdigitalradiographysystemfilteredimagesandsubtractionradiography AT vessoniiwakililiancristina comparisonofthediagnosticaccuracyofdirectdigitalradiographysystemfilteredimagesandsubtractionradiography AT dasilvamarilianichicarelli comparisonofthediagnosticaccuracyofdirectdigitalradiographysystemfilteredimagesandsubtractionradiography AT filholiogiiwaki comparisonofthediagnosticaccuracyofdirectdigitalradiographysystemfilteredimagesandsubtractionradiography AT queirozalfredodefranco comparisonofthediagnosticaccuracyofdirectdigitalradiographysystemfilteredimagesandsubtractionradiography AT geronlucasbachegasgomes comparisonofthediagnosticaccuracyofdirectdigitalradiographysystemfilteredimagesandsubtractionradiography |