Performance of different cone-beam computed tomography scan modes with and without metal artifact reduction in detection of recurrent dental caries under various restorative materials.

Polish journal of radiology Pub Date : 2024-06-07 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5114/pjr/188257
Farida Abesi, Fatemehzahra Talachi, Fariba Ezoji
{"title":"Performance of different cone-beam computed tomography scan modes with and without metal artifact reduction in detection of recurrent dental caries under various restorative materials.","authors":"Farida Abesi, Fatemehzahra Talachi, Fariba Ezoji","doi":"10.5114/pjr/188257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan modes with and without the application of a metal artifact reduction (MAR) option under 5 different restorative materials.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Our research was an in vitro study with 150 caries-free premolars and molars. The teeth were randomly divided into experimental (with artificially induced caries, <i>n</i> = 75) and control (without caries, <i>n</i> = 75) groups and were prepared based on 5 types of restorative materials, including conventional composites (Filtek Z250, Gradia), flow composite, glass ionomer, and amalgam. The teeth were examined under 2 CBCT scan modes (high-resolution [HIRes] and standard) with and without MAR application. Finally, the diagnostic accuracy index values (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], sensitivity, and specificity) were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The AUC of standard scan mode with the MAR option was significantly lower than that of HIRes with MAR (<i>p</i> = 0.018) and without MAR option (<i>p</i> = 0.011) in detecting recurrent caries. Also, without MAR option, the diagnostic accuracy (AUC) of the standard mode was significantly lower than that of the HIRes (<i>p</i> = 0.020). Similar findings were observed for sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, diagnostic performance of standard and HIRes scan modes with and without MAR in the amalgam group was lower than that in other restorative material groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Diagnostic performance of HIRes CBCT mode was higher than that of standard mode for recurrent caries and remained unaffected by MAR application. However, the accuracy in detecting recurrent caries was lower in the amalgam group compared with other restorative material groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":94174,"journal":{"name":"Polish journal of radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11262014/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish journal of radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/pjr/188257","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

Purpose: We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan modes with and without the application of a metal artifact reduction (MAR) option under 5 different restorative materials.

Material and methods: Our research was an in vitro study with 150 caries-free premolars and molars. The teeth were randomly divided into experimental (with artificially induced caries, n = 75) and control (without caries, n = 75) groups and were prepared based on 5 types of restorative materials, including conventional composites (Filtek Z250, Gradia), flow composite, glass ionomer, and amalgam. The teeth were examined under 2 CBCT scan modes (high-resolution [HIRes] and standard) with and without MAR application. Finally, the diagnostic accuracy index values (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], sensitivity, and specificity) were calculated.

Results: The AUC of standard scan mode with the MAR option was significantly lower than that of HIRes with MAR (p = 0.018) and without MAR option (p = 0.011) in detecting recurrent caries. Also, without MAR option, the diagnostic accuracy (AUC) of the standard mode was significantly lower than that of the HIRes (p = 0.020). Similar findings were observed for sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, diagnostic performance of standard and HIRes scan modes with and without MAR in the amalgam group was lower than that in other restorative material groups.

Conclusions: Diagnostic performance of HIRes CBCT mode was higher than that of standard mode for recurrent caries and remained unaffected by MAR application. However, the accuracy in detecting recurrent caries was lower in the amalgam group compared with other restorative material groups.

在检测各种修复材料下的复发性龋齿时,有无减少金属伪影的不同锥束计算机断层扫描模式的性能。
目的:我们的目的是比较在5种不同的修复材料下,使用和不使用金属伪影减少(MAR)选项的不同锥束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)扫描模式的诊断性能:我们的研究是一项体外研究,对象是 150 颗无龋的前臼齿和臼齿。这些牙齿被随机分为实验组(人工诱发龋,n = 75)和对照组(无龋,n = 75),并根据 5 种修复材料进行制备,包括传统复合材料(Filtek Z250、Gradia)、流动复合材料、玻璃离子聚合物和汞合金。在使用和不使用 MAR 的两种 CBCT 扫描模式(高分辨率 [HIRes] 和标准)下对牙齿进行检查。最后,计算了诊断准确性指标值(接收者操作特征曲线下面积 [AUC]、灵敏度和特异性):在检测复发性龋方面,带 MAR 选项的标准扫描模式的 AUC 明显低于带 MAR 的 HIRes(P = 0.018)和不带 MAR 选项的 HIRes(P = 0.011)。此外,在没有 MAR 选项的情况下,标准模式的诊断准确率(AUC)也明显低于 HIRes(p = 0.020)。灵敏度和特异性也有类似的结果。此外,标准和 HIRes 扫描模式在汞合金组和无 MAR 组的诊断性能均低于其他修复材料组:结论:对于复发性龋,HIRes CBCT 扫描模式的诊断性能高于标准扫描模式,且不受 MAR 应用的影响。然而,与其他修复材料组相比,汞合金组检测复发龋的准确性较低。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信