Débora Costa Ruiz, Rocharles Cavalcante Fontenele, Hugo Gaêta-Araujo, Amanda Farias-Gomes, Matheus L Oliveira, Deborah Queiroz Freitas, Francisco Haiter-Neto
{"title":"Influence of a handheld X-ray unit in the diagnosis of proximal caries lesions using different digital systems.","authors":"Débora Costa Ruiz, Rocharles Cavalcante Fontenele, Hugo Gaêta-Araujo, Amanda Farias-Gomes, Matheus L Oliveira, Deborah Queiroz Freitas, Francisco Haiter-Neto","doi":"10.1007/s11282-025-00805-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the influence of a handheld X-ray unit in the diagnosis of proximal caries lesions using different digital systems by comparing with a wall-mounted unit.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Radiographs of 40 human teeth were acquired using the Eagle X-ray handheld unit (Alliage, São Paulo, Brazil) set at 2.5 mA, 60 kVp and an exposure time of 0.45 s. Then, new radiographs of the teeth were acquired using the Focus X-ray wall-mounted unit (Instrumentarium, Tuusula, Finland) set at 7 mA, 60 kVp, and exposure time of 0.16 s. Three digital systems were used: a photostimulable phosphor plate receptor (Express system) and two complementary metal oxide semiconductor sensors (Digora Toto and SnapShot systems). Five oral and maxillofacial radiologists individually assessed the radiographs. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated from the responses of the examiners and compared using Analysis of Variance at a significance level of 5%. The weighted Kappa index evaluated the intra- and inter-examiner agreements for caries lesions diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The handheld X-ray unit did not influence on the diagnostic metrics for the three digital systems used when compared with the wall-mounted unit (p > 0.05). The SnapShot showed higher AUC value than Digora Toto (p < 0.05). The mean values of intra- and inter-examiner agreements were 0.654 (substantial) and 0.365 (fair), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The diagnostic accuracy for detecting proximal caries lesions is not influenced by the use of a handheld X-ray unit, regardless of the digital system used.</p>","PeriodicalId":56103,"journal":{"name":"Oral Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-025-00805-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the influence of a handheld X-ray unit in the diagnosis of proximal caries lesions using different digital systems by comparing with a wall-mounted unit.
Methods: Radiographs of 40 human teeth were acquired using the Eagle X-ray handheld unit (Alliage, São Paulo, Brazil) set at 2.5 mA, 60 kVp and an exposure time of 0.45 s. Then, new radiographs of the teeth were acquired using the Focus X-ray wall-mounted unit (Instrumentarium, Tuusula, Finland) set at 7 mA, 60 kVp, and exposure time of 0.16 s. Three digital systems were used: a photostimulable phosphor plate receptor (Express system) and two complementary metal oxide semiconductor sensors (Digora Toto and SnapShot systems). Five oral and maxillofacial radiologists individually assessed the radiographs. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated from the responses of the examiners and compared using Analysis of Variance at a significance level of 5%. The weighted Kappa index evaluated the intra- and inter-examiner agreements for caries lesions diagnosis.
Results: The handheld X-ray unit did not influence on the diagnostic metrics for the three digital systems used when compared with the wall-mounted unit (p > 0.05). The SnapShot showed higher AUC value than Digora Toto (p < 0.05). The mean values of intra- and inter-examiner agreements were 0.654 (substantial) and 0.365 (fair), respectively.
Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy for detecting proximal caries lesions is not influenced by the use of a handheld X-ray unit, regardless of the digital system used.
期刊介绍:
As the official English-language journal of the Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and the Asian Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Oral Radiology is intended to be a forum for international collaboration in head and neck diagnostic imaging and all related fields. Oral Radiology features cutting-edge research papers, review articles, case reports, and technical notes from both the clinical and experimental fields. As membership in the Society is not a prerequisite, contributions are welcome from researchers and clinicians worldwide.