In-vitro Comparison of high-resolution USG, CBCT and Direct Measurements of Periodontal Defects.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Mahmure Ayşe Tayman, Kıvanç Kamburoğlu, Esra Ece Çakmak, Doğukan Özen
{"title":"In-vitro Comparison of high-resolution USG, CBCT and Direct Measurements of Periodontal Defects.","authors":"Mahmure Ayşe Tayman, Kıvanç Kamburoğlu, Esra Ece Çakmak, Doğukan Özen","doi":"10.1093/dmfr/twaf019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), ultrasonography (USG) and direct measurements in linear dimensions of periodontal defects on the buccal alveolar surfaces of mandibular sheep teeth.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 88 defects were artificially created, including dehiscence, fenestration, grade I and II endodontic-periodontal defects. Two observers performed measurements twice. Maximum length, depth and width of the defects were measured with all three methods. Manual measurements were accepted as the gold standard. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. The mean value of the measurements, the bias, the standard deviation of the differences, and the limits of agreement were estimated. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Intra- and inter-observer reliability was excellent, suggesting ICCs 0.988-1 and 0.981-1, respectively. The highest CCs were obtained from depth measurements, while the lowest CCs were obtained from length measurements. Although the differences were scattered around the bias. The estimated bias values for USG and CBCT were 0,18 (0,153-0,21) (p < 0.001) and 0,091 (0,079-0,102) (p < 0.001), respectively. Observers recorded measurements which were slightly underestimated with both techniques utilized.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Observers measured periodontal defects with clinically acceptable underestimations by using CBCT and USG.</p><p><strong>Advances in knowledge: </strong>It is important to compare different innovative imaging modalities and gauge their efficiency in the measurement of various types of periodontal defects in terms of treatment planning, prognosis and follow up of those cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":11261,"journal":{"name":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dmfr/twaf019","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), ultrasonography (USG) and direct measurements in linear dimensions of periodontal defects on the buccal alveolar surfaces of mandibular sheep teeth.

Methods: A total of 88 defects were artificially created, including dehiscence, fenestration, grade I and II endodontic-periodontal defects. Two observers performed measurements twice. Maximum length, depth and width of the defects were measured with all three methods. Manual measurements were accepted as the gold standard. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. The mean value of the measurements, the bias, the standard deviation of the differences, and the limits of agreement were estimated. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results: Intra- and inter-observer reliability was excellent, suggesting ICCs 0.988-1 and 0.981-1, respectively. The highest CCs were obtained from depth measurements, while the lowest CCs were obtained from length measurements. Although the differences were scattered around the bias. The estimated bias values for USG and CBCT were 0,18 (0,153-0,21) (p < 0.001) and 0,091 (0,079-0,102) (p < 0.001), respectively. Observers recorded measurements which were slightly underestimated with both techniques utilized.

Conclusions: Observers measured periodontal defects with clinically acceptable underestimations by using CBCT and USG.

Advances in knowledge: It is important to compare different innovative imaging modalities and gauge their efficiency in the measurement of various types of periodontal defects in terms of treatment planning, prognosis and follow up of those cases.

高分辨率USG、CBCT与牙周缺损直接测量的体外比较。
目的:比较锥束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)、超声(USG)和直接测量下颌羊牙颊槽面牙周缺损线性尺寸的准确性。方法:人工造牙88例,包括牙裂、开孔、牙髓-牙周一级和二级缺损。两名观察员进行了两次测量。缺陷的最大长度、深度和宽度用这三种方法测量。人工测量被认为是金标准。计算类内相关系数(ICC)。估计测量值的平均值、偏差、差异的标准偏差和一致的限度。结果:观察者内部和观察者之间的信度非常好,ICCs分别为0.988-1和0.981-1。最高的CCs来自深度测量,而最低的CCs来自长度测量。尽管差异分散在偏差周围。USG和CBCT的估计偏倚值为0.18 (0,153-0,21)(p)。结论:观察者使用CBCT和USG测量牙周缺损时,临床可接受的低估值。知识的进步:比较不同的创新成像方式,并衡量它们在不同类型牙周缺损的治疗计划、预后和随访方面的效率是很重要的。
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
5.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
65
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (DMFR) is the journal of the International Association of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (IADMFR) and covers the closely related fields of oral radiology and head and neck imaging. Established in 1972, DMFR is a key resource keeping dentists, radiologists and clinicians and scientists with an interest in Head and Neck imaging abreast of important research and developments in oral and maxillofacial radiology. The DMFR editorial board features a panel of international experts including Editor-in-Chief Professor Ralf Schulze. Our editorial board provide their expertise and guidance in shaping the content and direction of the journal. Quick Facts: - 2015 Impact Factor - 1.919 - Receipt to first decision - average of 3 weeks - Acceptance to online publication - average of 3 weeks - Open access option - ISSN: 0250-832X - eISSN: 1476-542X
×
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