Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
   
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |

 

Login  | Users Online: 2812  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 338-342

Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of direct digital radiography system, filtered images, and subtraction radiography


1 Department of Dentistry, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Paraná, Oral Radiology, Federal University of Sergipe, Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil
2 Department of Oral Radiology, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Paraná, Oral Radiology, Federal University of Sergipe, Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil
3 Department of Oral Diagnosis, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Paraná, Oral Radiology, Federal University of Sergipe, Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil

Correspondence Address:
Wilton Mitsunari Takeshita
Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Sergipe, Av. Cláudio Batista. Aracaju, Sergipe
Brazil
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.118391

Rights and Permissions

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.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2655    
    Printed38    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded295    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal